Coronainsanity

[sggatecl]

Now it's not clear to me that the studies you referenced in your next post don't suffer from this same problem, but as they say, the burden of proof is on the person making the assumption/declaration/accusation.

I can't read it for you and I'm not going to break down MY posts after having to do it for yours as well.

If it's not clear to you, then you didn't bother reading it (which isn't surprising considering the bullshit that you just shared without reading) or you just don't understand it. Which is fine. There are plenty of topics I don't feel knowledgable enough about to insert my opinion.

It's cool, I didn't actually expect you to come back and say "You're right, I shouldn't have shared that without verifying it or finding a better source." That's not the world we live in now and I understand that. But at the very least, a couple people may not have shared that steaming pile of shit on a whim like you did and that's enough of a win for me. I eagerly look forward to the next groundbreaking piece from 'americangreatness.com' that the LiBeRaL MeDiA refuse to report on. Maybe I'll dismantle it and throw back in your face for you to digest, maybe I'll ignore it because I don't have time to hold your hand. Time will tell!

 

[tinselwolverine]

Now that abortion is going to be illegal, maybe instead of the morning after pill you just give the broad a Pfizer shot

Yah.

Um?it?s gettin? a little hot at around midnight talkin? about small subsection of the population that likely has has little to nothing to do with anyone here.

But then, it?s a free country brother.

This Hollywood guy is a Trump guy.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rvtbRfne3cA

 

[Spartanmack]

I can't read it for you and I'm not going to break down MY posts after having to do it for yours as well.

If it's not clear to you, then you didn't bother reading it (which isn't surprising considering the bullshit that you just shared without reading) or you just don't understand it. Which is fine. There are plenty of topics I don't feel knowledgable enough about to insert my opinion.

So I guess the burden of proof isn't on the one making the assumption/declaration/accusation? Yeah, don't bother breaking down your post. Given the rather large error you made "breaking down" my post, I'm not so sure I'd be able to rely on your break down of your own either.

I didn't read your study of studies because I didn't have time - I suspect, based on the fact that Pfizer/Biontech delayed their COVID pregancy study after failing to enroll the 4k women they needed for the study and as far as I can tell, have not resumed it that there isn't a reliable data set to draw a conclusion either way. This study for example found rates of miscarriages at the high end of the range (13.9%) but again, this seems incomplete at best. The study only ran from mid Dec '20 through through Feb '21 (~2.5 months). In it there were 35,691 women who identified as pregnant, but only 3,958 enrolled in the "v-safe pregnancy registry" (whatever that is). Among those ~4k women, 827 had a completed pregancy, of which 115 were pregnancy losses (13.9%). I don't have time to comb through 27 studies, so I'm not going to but it seems highly likely the claim that vaccinated women have a lower miscarriage rate than the population is complete bull shit.

It's cool, I didn't actually expect you to come back and say "You're right, I shouldn't have shared that without verifying it or finding a better source." That's not the world we live in now and I understand that. But at the very least, a couple people may not have shared that steaming pile of shit on a whim like you did and that's enough of a win for me. I eagerly look forward to the next groundbreaking piece from 'americangreatness.com' that the LiBeRaL MeDiA refuse to report on. Maybe I'll dismantle it and throw back in your face for you to digest, maybe I'll ignore it because I don't have time to hold your hand. Time will tell!

I didn't come back and say you're right because you're not. If you're going to be a condescending prick, make sure you don't make big glaring errors like you did. I did agree that she made a big mistake and said I should have read it more closely and then I did, which is how I know your claim that the miscarriage rate is lower than 10-15% average is, at best unsbustantiated. I half expected you to say "you're right, that part of my analysis is flawed and the data is incomplete" rather than throwing a tantrum like you did. I'll know better next time. If you plan to "dismantle" the next piece, make sure you don't make obvious mistakes like this time, otherwise I may have to throw it back in your face for you to not digest again. Maybe I'll respond to see you throw another tantrum, or maybe I'll just ignore it.

 

[Michchamp]

I can't read it for you and I'm not going to break down MY posts after having to do it for yours as well.

If it's not clear to you, then you didn't bother reading it (which isn't surprising considering the bullshit that you just shared without reading) or you just don't understand it. Which is fine. There are plenty of topics I don't feel knowledgable enough about to insert my opinion.

It's cool, I didn't actually expect you to come back and say "You're right, I shouldn't have shared that without verifying it or finding a better source." That's not the world we live in now and I understand that. But at the very least, a couple people may not have shared that steaming pile of shit on a whim like you did and that's enough of a win for me. I eagerly look forward to the next groundbreaking piece from 'americangreatness.com' that the LiBeRaL MeDiA refuse to report on. Maybe I'll dismantle it and throw back in your face for you to digest, maybe I'll ignore it because I don't have time to hold your hand. Time will tell!

Weren't you saying in the other thread that this board has become the facebook you thought you quit?

u got reeled back in.

 

[tigermud]

Official Government Reports prove the COVID Vaccines cause Cancer

https://expose-news.com/2022/08/21/gov-reports-prove-covid-vaccines-cause-cancer/

 

[mhughes0021]

Official Government Reports prove the COVID Vaccines cause Cancer

https://expose-news.com/2022/08/21/gov-reports-prove-covid-vaccines-cause-cancer/

So does air. When are you going to stop breathing?

 

[Spartanmack]

So does air. When are you going to stop breathing?

You go first?

 

[sggatecl]

It should also be noted that your 6% number is not to be relied upon. We know this because the dates of reporting pregnancy are included in the table you highlighted. The overwhelming majority of women reporting pregnancy after their first dose (72%) were from November 2020 or later. The study cutoff was mid March 2021 with data presented to the FDA in April. Presumably you're aware the human gestation period is 40 weeks. More than half the women in that sample (58%) were in the study for less than half that period. In fact, the earliest any woman reported pregnancy after the first dose was August 19th - she would have been 7 months pregnant when the study cutoff. That means none of them were pregnant long enough to get to full term. I wonder how many of those women delivered early. That would be interesting to know.

Presumably you're aware that 80% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester. So, unless you come up with some magical reason that in THESE women the miscarriages would suddenly happen in later trimesters...none of that is relevant in the slightest.

Now it's not clear to me that the studies you referenced in your next post don't suffer from this same problem, but as they say, the burden of proof is on the person making the assumption/declaration/accusation.

Insert clever meme about telling your editor to check his sources next time (bit sexist of you, by the way). You can pick up your mic now, the floor is yours.

My source literally is the data and speaks for itself. It literally is the proof. It's not my fault you can't be bothered to read anything past a headline. That's on you.

So I guess the burden of proof isn't on the one making the assumption/declaration/accusation? Yeah, don't bother breaking down your post. Given the rather large error you made "breaking down" my post, I'm not so sure I'd be able to rely on your break down of your own either.

I didn't read your study of studies because I didn't have time - I suspect, based on the fact that Pfizer/Biontech delayed their COVID pregancy study after failing to enroll the 4k women they needed for the study and as far as I can tell, have not resumed it that there isn't a reliable data set to draw a conclusion either way. This study for example found rates of miscarriages at the high end of the range (13.9%) but again, this seems incomplete at best. The study only ran from mid Dec '20 through through Feb '21 (~2.5 months). In it there were 35,691 women who identified as pregnant, but only 3,958 enrolled in the "v-safe pregnancy registry" (whatever that is). Among those ~4k women, 827 had a completed pregancy, of which 115 were pregnancy losses (13.9%). I don't have time to comb through 27 studies, so I'm not going to but it seems highly likely the claim that vaccinated women have a lower miscarriage rate than the population is complete bull shit.

I didn't come back and say you're right because you're not. If you're going to be a condescending prick, make sure you don't make big glaring errors like you did. I did agree that she made a big mistake and said I should have read it more closely and then I did, which is how I know your claim that the miscarriage rate is lower than 10-15% average is, at best unsbustantiated. I half expected you to say "you're right, that part of my analysis is flawed and the data is incomplete" rather than throwing a tantrum like you did. I'll know better next time. If you plan to "dismantle" the next piece, make sure you don't make obvious mistakes like this time, otherwise I may have to throw it back in your face for you to not digest again. Maybe I'll respond to see you throw another tantrum, or maybe I'll just ignore it.

There were no errors made. I used the same data/tables your original post did. The only difference is, I'm smart enough to know what the fuck I'm reading. 'tHe HuMaN GeStAtIoN pErIod iS 40 wEeKs'. Good job buddy, all those 3rd trimester miscarraiges are really going to add up I'm sure!

Consescending prick? Maybe. But I'd rather be that than another ignorant person sharing BULLSHIT nonsense. You're out of your depth on this one.

44%. And you shared that. Holy shit dude. Alex Jones has some supplements to sell you. tigermud might have a promo code if you ask.

44%... :lmao: :tup:

 

[sggatecl]

Weren't you saying in the other thread that this board has become the facebook you thought you quit?

u got reeled back in.

Sometimes the bait is too good and they get me. Fortunately it's the offseason essentially outside of the Tigers so I only come back every few days.

 

[tomdalton22]

Sometimes the bait is too good and they get me. Fortunately it's the offseason essentially outside of the Tigers so I only come back every few days.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPw-3e_pzqU&ab_channel=zbencz2

 

[tinselwolverine]

So does air. When are you going to stop breathing?

Congrats.

You?re outdone yourself.

Of all the stupid things you?ve posted, this is the dumbest.

Even though as I?ve said, I?m pretty sure you post things you know are dumb to get a reaction.

So again, congrats.

 

[Spartanmack]

Presumably you're aware that 80% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester. So, unless you come up with some magical reason that in THESE women the miscarriages would suddenly happen in later trimesters...none of that is relevant in the slightest.

I am aware and like I said, given the dates of reporting 32% of the women were pregnant for less than a trimester during the study, 26% for less than 8 weeks. More than half for less than half term. It's entirely relevant.

In addition, a sample size of 50 (including the 16 women pregnant less than a trimester before the study cutoff date), even if the study was long enough for all of them to complete the first trimester, probably isn't enough to draw the conclusion you're drawing. Recall, as I said in post #6003, Pfizer cancelled their study of the vaccine on pregnant women after failing to enroll the 4,000 entrants they sought - that alone should tell you 50 is a pretty weak and unreliable sample size.

My source literally is the data and speaks for itself. It literally is the proof. It's not my fault you can't be bothered to read anything past a headline. That's on you.

Not if it suffers from the same flaws/limitations as the Pfizer data and the other study I posted which by the way, showed miscarriage rates were in the high end of the 10-15% expected range.

There were no errors made. I used the same data/tables your original post did. The only difference is, I'm smart enough to know what the fuck I'm reading.

Yes, there clearly were and no, you're clearly not. I've acknowledged the 44% is wrong but I guess you need to keep it about that number and throw in some bizarre references to Alex Jones to distract from your own errors.

 

[mhughes0021]

Congrats.

You?re outdone yourself.

Of all the stupid things you?ve posted, this is the dumbest.

Even though as I?ve said, I?m pretty sure you post things you know are dumb to get a reaction.

So again, congrats.

Are you disagreeing with the statement? Wheres your facts?

Im sure hes super concerned of the cancer scare from covid vaccines.....while hes puffing on a cigarette lmao.

 

[tigermud]

Are you disagreeing with the statement? Wheres your facts?

Im sure hes super concerned of the cancer scare from covid vaccines.....while hes puffing on a cigarette lmao.

I quit smoking about 10 years ago. boogie woogie boo now drop and give me 20!

 

[tinselwolverine]

Are you disagreeing with the statement? Wheres your facts?

Im sure hes super concerned of the cancer scare from covid vaccines.....while hes puffing on a cigarette lmao.

Of course I?m disagreeing.

Tobacco smoke and air are not the same thing.

That is a fact.

This is your example of air causing cancer?

Because some people mix air with tobacco smoke?

EDIT: If you look it up, the percentage of cases of cancer caused by carcinogens in the air is very low.

It?s kind of like declaring a monkeypox pandemic, even for people who are not men who have sex with other men.

 

[Spartanmack]

Of course I?m disagreeing.

Tobacco smoke and air are not the same thing.

That is a fact.

This is your example of air causing cancer?

Because some people mix air with tobacco smoke?

EDIT: If you look it up, the percentage of cases of cancer caused by carcinogens in the air is very low.

It?s kind of like declaring a monkeypox pandemic, even for people who are not men who have sex with other men.

I'm confused, is it air or carcinogens that cause cancer?

this seems to be a very homo/transphobic take on monkeypox. what about people who have sex with men who have sex with other men? or trans women? Also, this data is about a month old, monkeypox lives on surfaces. Do better.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I'm confused, is it air or carcinogens that cause cancer?

this seems to be a very homo/transphobic take on monkeypox. what about people who have sex with men who have sex with other men? or trans women? Also, this data is about a month old, monkeypox lives on surfaces. Do better.

I don?t think so. I don?t care what consenting adults do in private. It?s data driven.

This is from under a week ago. Doesn?t seem like much has changed from last month to last week.

Can people get cancer from carcinogens in the air excluding the air they?re breathing when they?re inhaling tobacco smoke? It?s not that common but it happens.

Can women get the monkeypox from touching surfaces excluding surfaces of skin of men who have sex with other men? It?s not common but it happens.

But it?s not common.

 

[Spartanmack]

I don?t think so. I don?t care what consenting adults do in private. It?s data driven.

This is from under a week ago. Doesn?t seem like much has changed from last month to last week.

Can people get cancer from carcinogens in the air excluding the air they?re breathing when they?re inhaling tobacco smoke? It?s not that common but it happens.

Can women get the monkeypox from touching surfaces excluding surfaces of skin of men who have sex with other men? It?s not common but it happens.

But it?s not common.

That's not what Hughes tells us - you're relying on old data.

Also, it's not enough to not care what consenting adults do in private. As with racism, you have to be anti-homophobic. You have to celebrate what consenting adults do in private (or public) as well as acknowledge and defer to their superior virtue. In short, we all have to "do better" to protect marginalized communities by not identifying or warning them about the risks of certain behaviors.

 

[mhughes0021]

I quit smoking about 10 years ago. boogie woogie boo now drop and give me 20!

Sorry Tiger...im just trolling so i can sound like Spartan. Your post gave me the best opportunity to do to sound like something spartan would post is all.

 

[mhughes0021]

That's not what Hughes tells us - you're relying on old data.

Also, it's not enough to not care what consenting adults do in private. As with racism, you have to be anti-homophobic. You have to celebrate what consenting adults do in private (or public) as well as acknowledge and defer to their superior virtue. In short, we all have to "do better" to protect marginalized communities by not identifying or warning them about the risks of certain behaviors.

Kid got monkeypox 2 days ago in NY. Heres a quote from the article....its either a true statement or we have gay men sleeping with kids. You decide. Youre stupid...so youll probably decide something stupid.

Since the monkeypox outbreak began in May, most cases have occurred among men who have sex with men. But anyone can catch the virus through close skin-to-skin contact.
In the case of children, the CDC said, this could include "holding, cuddling, feeding, as well as through shared items such as towels, bedding, cups, and utensils."