fides' Jack's Mega Anti-Vax Thread

[fides' Jack]

2 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

They cited no evidence.  They just asserted that because the CDC created a new diagnostic code for a new disease (which is standard practice) that COVID will be over-represented.  What evidence do you have that backs up the quack's claim?

That's a flat-out lie.  The evidence is linked in the article: http://chironreturn.org/documents/comorbidity-federal-law.pdf

Just because you consider the source of this evidence to be "quacks" doesn't make it so, and doesn't make it false, and doesn't mean that it's not evidence.

It is not standard practice to order in certain places, against legal code, that all deaths are listed as covid deaths - and that did happen.

It is not standard practice to order, on a federal level, that everyone who tested positive within 30 days (using a method described by the method's creator as incorrectly used to test for presence of a specific virus - and estimated by the same to give 90% false positives), or exhibited one or two symptoms of an illness, to automatically be listed as a death caused by that illness.

The evidence is in the PDF.  For anyone who's interested, you can read it for yourself.  Denying it's there doesn't mean it's not there.  

[hakutaku]

1 minute ago, fides' Jack said:

It is not standard practice to order, on a federal level, that everyone who tested positive within 30 days (using a method described by the method's creator as incorrectly used to test for presence of a specific virus - and estimated by the same to give 90% false positives), or exhibited one or two symptoms of an illness, to automatically be listed as a death caused by that illness. 

No, see, this is how quacks work.  The specific claim is that COVID is over-represented.  None of this is evidence of over-representation, it is conspiracy theory fearmongering.  An alternate explanation is that the changes were necessary to prevent under-reporting and actually achieved that end. 

Evidence of over-representation would look like: COVID reports say X, but excess death tracking says Y.  X-Y is large, therefore there is likely over-representation.

Did you notice how their paper says that if the rules hadn't changed, there would have been less than 10k reported COVID deaths?  That is loony tunes when you look at 2020's excess death rates.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm

[hakutaku]

21 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

Did you notice how their paper says that if the rules hadn't changed, there would have been less than 10k reported COVID deaths?

Hahaha! They don't even believe their own numbers!

Their paper says, quote:

Quote

tens of thousands of Americans have died without access to potentially life-saving medications like hydroxychloroquine

But their paper also says that the old guidelines would have resulted in less than 10k reported deaths!  So it seems that the CDC was right to amend the old guidelines to prevent under-reporting.

Oh no!  They also cited this article which was a survey of Wisconsin student athletes that concluded students were more depressed and anxious after sports cancellations.   What do the quacks say about this paper?

Quote

Anxiety, depression, suicide rates, domestic violence, and alcoholism have all reportedly risen significantly due to the economic hardships brought on by how state governors decided to exercise their authority...

Amazing!  The quacks have made up conclusions about suicide, domestic violence, and alcoholism in a paper that didn't even study those outcomes.

I can forgive someone getting fooled by quacks once or twice, but their methods aren't subtle; it takes a real sucker to keep parroting the "we have to take the quacks' claims seriously" while getting hoodwinked over and over again.

[fides' Jack]

You're a liar and a falsifier.  Anyone can look at the evidence themselves.  There are 101 sources cited in their paper.  I haven't looked at all of them, and I'm sure you haven't, either, but I've looked at enough to know they aren't quacks.  

And if you deny that anxiety, depression, suicide rates, domestic violence, and alcoholism have increased since the shutdowns, and due to the shutdowns and overall fear in the general populace right now, as well as other causes, you're lying about that, too.

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

Hahaha! They don't even believe their own numbers!

Their paper says, quote:

Quote

tens of thousands of Americans have died without access to potentially life-saving medications like hydroxychloroquine

But their paper also says that the old guidelines would have resulted in less than 10k reported deaths!  So it seems that the CDC was right to amend the old guidelines to prevent under-reporting.

Their paper came out after the evidence that they cited.  It's entirely likely that the number would have passed the 10,000 mark, even by their own data admission of just under 10,000 deaths, in the time they went through the data to the point that they published their work.  So no, you're wrong, although, I don't believe this is a lie.  I think you actually believe this specific nonsense that you're spouting.

1 hour ago, hakutaku said:

No, see, this is how quacks work.  The specific claim is that COVID is over-represented.  None of this is evidence of over-representation, it is conspiracy theory fearmongering.  An alternate explanation is that the changes were necessary to prevent under-reporting and actually achieved that end. 

The fear-mongering is entirely on your side of this argument.  You people have ruined millions of lives with your lies.  If you don't repent in this life, you will have eternity to make up for it. 

Fauci did the same thing, but at least he admitted to it, and called his lies "noble lies", whatever that means.

Anathema!

[hakutaku]

27 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

You're a liar and a falsifier.  Anyone can look at the evidence themselves.  There are 101 sources cited in their paper.

Its right there in black and white (also yellow, for some reason, probably because it was written by clowns.)  They cited only the Wisconsin sports survey as evidence for the suicide/violence/alcohol claims.  I also find it pretty hilarious that they cited the Sports Network instead of the paper itself.

34 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

And if you deny that anxiety, depression, suicide rates, domestic violence, and alcoholism have increased since the shutdowns,

The suicide story is not nearly as bad as the fearmongers have been making out:

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2021-04/tl-tlp041221.php

Quote

A new observational study is the first to examine suicides occurring during the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic in multiple countries and finds that suicide numbers largely remained unchanged or declined in the pandemic's early months. [through July]

 

36 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Their paper came out after the evidence that they cited.  It's entirely likely that the number would have passed the 10,000 mark,

If you are writing a serious paper and you think something is likely but don't have evidence, you say "it is likely that..."  If you have the evidence to support the claim, you put it in the paper and take out the "likely."

 

39 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

The fear-mongering is entirely on your side of this argument...  If you don't repent in this life, you will have eternity to make up for it. 

Hahaha!   These two sentences are beautifully juxtaposed. "I'm not fearmongering; let me tell you what you should fear!"

 

Now why haven't you addressed my central point about the huge disparity between their loony tunes "less than 10k deaths" number and the excess deaths?

[hakutaku]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/suicide-decline-united-states-covid-pandemic/

[PhuturePriest]

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by PhuturePriest

[fides' Jack]

What are you talking about?  Maybe you didn't understand my point.

My point is that your entire post is horse manure.  You make ad hominem attacks to rile people up and then turn to straw men and red herrings to try to finish the job.  You are a walking, talking fallacy.  That's all you have.  

Everything in your last post is a fallacy.  

Your best line is this:

16 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Hahaha!   These two sentences are beautifully juxtaposed.

This is a subjective statement of opinion.  Yes, I want people to fear what they should fear, which is hell.  That is not fear-mongering.  That is truth.  You want people to fear a virus that is less deadly, apparently within every age group, than a seasonal flu.  That is fear-mongering.  You wish to control people's lives based on that lie.  I don't.

The only thing a truly holy person will fear is offending God.  Viruses should mean nothing.  Death should mean nothing.  It is all passing away, and in the end all that will matter is how much we love God and tried to do His Holy Will.  My goal is to bring up arguments as I come across them to help people do exactly this - they should not fear COVID.  Most especially when it's all based on lies, anyway.

I say it again: anathema!  You are a vile atheist.  You have no morals, and no possible basis for any true morality.  You lack any and all credibility in a Catholic forum.  You haven't presented any real arguments, but only fallacy after fallacy. 

Begone!

[hakutaku]

3 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

My point is that your entire post is horse manure.  You make ad hominem attacks to rile people up and then turn to straw men and red herrings to try to finish the job.  You are a walking, talking fallacy.  That's all you have.  

 

16 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Now why haven't you addressed my central point about the huge disparity between their loony tunes "less than 10k deaths" number and the excess deaths?

Also, what about the fact that you were simply factually wrong about suicide rates?

[fides' Jack]

 

8 minutes ago, hakutaku said:

16 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Now why haven't you addressed my central point about the huge disparity between their loony tunes "less than 10k deaths" number and the excess deaths?

Also, what about the fact that you were simply factually wrong about suicide rates?

I did address your "central point".  You just chose to focus on 1 word and how that word doesn't make any sense, rather than understanding that your "central point" is another fallacy, which is what I pointed out.  And I was not wrong about suicide rates.  

Anathema!  You're only here to further lies and propaganda.  Maybe that's intentional, maybe not, I don't care.  Begone!

 

[hakutaku]

11 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I did address your "central point".  You just chose to focus on 1 word and how that word doesn't make any sense, rather than understanding that your "central point" is another fallacy, which is what I pointed out.  And I was not wrong about suicide rates.  

Look, your own post's title is "Exaggerated COVID Death Rate".  There are exactly two numbers that matter if you're going to prove that assertion:

X: The number of reported deaths from COVID

Y: The number of actual deaths from COVID

Your assertion is true if and only if X - Y is a large number.  But nothing you've posted gives any evidence of that.

The quack paper you cited knows that X - Y is not a large number.  That is why they don't talk about X or Y.  They make up a new irrelevant number:

Z: The hypothetical number of reported COVID deaths if reporting rules were different.

They then commit the logical fallacy of equivocation by insinuating that Y and Z are the same number.  You fell for their trick hook, line and sinker, and have offered no defense of their loony tunes numbers. 

My point is that excess deaths have in fact tracked with reported COVID deaths. Which is what we would expect if COVID was being reported correctly.

The reason suicide is relevant is that you might be tempted to say "excess deaths are due to suicide, not COVID."  Like you did here:

18 hours ago, fides' Jack said:

And if you deny that... suicide rates... have increased since the shutdowns... you're lying about that, too.

But you were wrong.  Facts are facts, and the fact is that the suicide rate decreased in 2020.

[fides' Jack]

4 hours ago, hakutaku said:

But you were wrong.  Facts are facts, and the fact is that the suicide rate decreased in 2020.

 

4 hours ago, hakutaku said:

My point is that excess deaths have in fact tracked with reported COVID deaths. Which is what we would expect if COVID was being reported correctly.

 

4 hours ago, hakutaku said:

Your assertion is true if and only if X - Y is a large number.  But nothing you've posted gives any evidence of that.

Lies, lies, and more lies.  Let others read the material for themselves and come to their own conclusions.

Suicide is way up in most areas, as the CDC itself admits.

Excess deaths are virtually non-existent, as multiple sources have shown over and over again.

16x the reported number is enough excess as to qualify as a subjective "large number", by ANY standards.

I'm not looking to prove some philosophical argument.  I'm not looking even to prove a logical argument.  All I want to do is present facts that others are positing - facts which are censored on all the major social media platforms.  Why are they censored?  Because they run contrary to the lies sold by the likes of you.

We are in the end times, and the devil is using you to further his agenda, whether or not you believe in him.  Wake up!

[hakutaku]

14 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

16x the reported number is enough excess as to qualify as a subjective "large number", by ANY standards.

Didn't you read my post?  They calculated 16x vs a hypothetical number, not 16x vs the real death rate.

14 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Suicide is way up in most areas, as the CDC itself admits.

Ooo! The CDC admits this?  Then it should be easy to find a source for that claim! You wouldn't be lying right?  Lying is only for "vile atheists" not good Catholics right? 

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234

(That is the CDC study which claims that CDC data shows, quote, "From 2019 to 2020, deaths due to chronic lower respiratory disease declined by 3.4% and suicide deaths declined by 5.6%.")

14 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

Excess deaths are virtually non-existent, as multiple sources have shown over and over again.

Oh!  So post some of those sources!  Surely they are high quality peer reviewed studies, and not quack publications from fringe groups!  You're not just lying about the data like you did with the CDC are you?

14 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I'm not looking even to prove a logical argument.

No one is accusing you of being logical.

  

14 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

All I want to do is present facts that others are positing - facts which are censored on all the major social media platforms.

Then why are you posting non-facts, like claiming that the CDC said the opposite of what it actually said?

Edited April 20, 2021 by hakutaku

[fides' Jack]

Lies, lies, and more lies.  You will have an answer for anything I could possibly say, so I will say no more.  Information can be found online, though truth is getting harder to find, because it's being censored on several levels.  I've posted several sources.  I recognize there are "sources" to backup whichever side a person chooses.  There are literally hundreds now saying exactly what I've been saying.

Even Lancet, which had been hailed as the "Bible of medical professionals (ironically, because that really shows the level of trust that we put in the medical profession - to the point of sin), last year had to retract a "study" that it published on hydroxychloroquine, because it was clear that the group that was publishing it was not peer reviewed and the claims were so verifiably false that it was retracted pretty quickly.  (For those who know what Lancet is, let that sink in - that's a once-in-a-generation event.  Lancet is supposed to be the best of the best.)  Sadly, it was too late to undo the damage, which meant that a drug that had been available for close to a century and known to be perfectly safe in the correct dosages (and known to have a number of benefits), was unavailable to health professionals in the U.S..  Why?  Because "Orange Man Bad" said it was good.

Ultimately it comes down to faith, as the Bible and Tradition have charged.  Those who hold fast to their faith will be able to see the truth for what it is.  Those who don't will be blind, as you are.

[fides' Jack]

Well, we were told the vaccines had over 90% efficacy, right?  (Contrary to common sense, which would tell us that it should be more like it is for other viruses, like the seasonal flu, for which the annual vaccines have between 7% and 40% efficacy rates.)

Well, now a Yale health professor is saying more than half of all the new COVID cases are from vaccinated people:

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/yale-public-health-professor-suggests-60-of-new-covid-19-patients-have-received-vaccine?utm_source=featured&utm_campaign=standard

Why take the vaccine at all, then?  

Former VP of Pfizer: "Your government is lying to you in a way that could lead to your death"

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-former-pfizer-vp-your-government-is-lying-to-you-in-a-way-that-could-lead-to-your-death