Gosh, wasn't it a fact the 2 mRNA vaccines prevented infection and spread at a 95% rate?
No, we're not going to forget
- Thread starter naturalbornhawk
- Start date
Of course, as long as the piper is paid, as long as we pay homage to the precious.
I'll do my own cost-benefit analysis thank you. Theirs clearly has conflicts of interest.
Last edited:
Was a time when 100% of educated humans believed that the sun revolved around the earth... phucking idiot.
Yes. That was when the people you now defend bashing vaccines based their entire understanding of the world around them on RELIGION.
We live in the 21st century now. It's OK to step out of that rabbit hole and join us.
More garbage 'studies' from the resident expert.
The Massachusetts study was responded to by only 109/1,461 physicians (7.5%) - but the elephant in the room was in their study LIMITATIONS; they never asked in their questionnaire if those who had gotten injected did so under coercion (threat of being fired).
Better yet, in the AMA 'study' linked therein (https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2021-06/physician-vaccination-study-topline-report.pdf) only 301/1,077,500 practicing physicians nationwide (.03%) were included.
No vaccination records were analyzed, but 96% of the .03% of the nation's physicians 'say' they're vaccinated for covid. That's some powerful stuff! 🤣🤣🤣
The Massachusetts study was responded to by only 109/1,461 physicians (7.5%) - but the elephant in the room was in their study LIMITATIONS; they never asked in their questionnaire if those who had gotten injected did so under coercion (threat of being fired).
Better yet, in the AMA 'study' linked therein (https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2021-06/physician-vaccination-study-topline-report.pdf) only 301/1,077,500 practicing physicians nationwide (.03%) were included.
No vaccination records were analyzed, but 96% of the .03% of the nation's physicians 'say' they're vaccinated for covid. That's some powerful stuff! 🤣🤣🤣
Funny how you can't admit so-called facts, stated just 4 short years ago, have been proven to be wrong.
And the overwhelming majority of that sample was in favor of vaccines.
Which means something, if you understand things like "statistics" and "confidence intervals".
Where?
I've absolutely agreed that the early data are no longer considered "accurate". But I'm intelligent enough to understand that the decisions made based on that data cannot be claimed as "false" or "wrong", because that was the data we had at the time.
A survey is only meaningful in Joe's world if **he thinks** it speaks positively about vaccines. Post a survey that doesn't speak positively about vaccines and it's **just a survey** and so complete rubbish. I believe there might be an example of that in this very thread.
This survey, for the reasons you pointed out was indeed complete rubbish, and it's laughable to see him still standing by it as if it's meaningful. Which brings us back to the point about religion.
That survey is of pediatricians.
Posting a survey of Twitter idiots really isn't an equivalent comparison.
Unsurprising that you cannot understand this difference.
He's got some very insightful stuff to say about confidence intervals in a SURVEY!
It obviously never occurred to him why only .03% of doctors responded to a survey if they actually thought covid vaccines were so awesome: they're afraid. Since the medical establishment obviously doesn't care about privacy maybe they should release the actual vaccination records of every doctor in the country to prove what % are vaxxed/boosted. Guarantee it's nowhere near 96%. Maybe 35?
He really is a treasure. 🤣🤣🤣
It wasn't a nationwide survey, idiot.
You really struggle that the number is nearly 100% here.
He's got some very insightful stuff to say about confidence intervals in a SURVEY!
It obviously never occurred to him why only .03% of doctors responded to a survey if they actually thought covid vaccines were so awesome: they're afraid. Since the medical establishment obviously doesn't care about privacy maybe they should release the actual vaccination records of every doctor in the country to prove what % are vaxxed/boosted. Guarantee it's nowhere near 96%. Maybe 35?
He really is a treasure. 🤣🤣🤣
Nearly everyone, including babies and young kids, can stay healthy while protecting their family and others from COVID. The updated COVID vaccine is recommended for kids age 6 months and older. Vaccination is the best way to prepare your child's immune system to recognize and resist COVID.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) strongly recommend that all eligible children and teens get the COVID vaccine.
COVID Vaccines for Children Age 6 Months Through 4 Years: FAQs for Families
Babies and young kids should get the updated COVID vaccine. The vaccine is recommended for everyone age 6 months and up. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for infants and children in this age group...
Then, email the AAP and ask them why you think they're "afraid". Because this is their recommendation posted/updated as of last month.
What if my infant or young child already had COVID?
If your child had a COVID infection, they should still receive an updated COVID vaccination, according to CDC guidelines. It is possible to be infected again with the virus. Vaccines help protect your child by providing extra protection from COVID, even after they have had an infection. People who already had COVID and do not get vaccinated after they recover are more likely to get it again, compared with those who get vaccinated after they recover.Again: AAP's recommendation.
So your stance is that facts can't be wrong if the data at the time is incomplete or even inaccurate?
WTAF are you babbling about now?
Facts AT THE TIME are the facts you have to work from.
Data DO change over time, particularly with a rapidly evolving, new virus.
Does that mean the facts from 2 years ago were "wrong"? No.
And what part of "original Covid" is now extinct. The vaccines were highly effective against those variants, which is why they went extinct.
Kids don't need this shit. They know better. What an f'n scam.Nearly everyone, including babies and young kids, can stay healthy while protecting their family and others from COVID. The updated COVID vaccine is recommended for kids age 6 months and older. Vaccination is the best way to prepare your child's immune system to recognize and resist COVID.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) strongly recommend that all eligible children and teens get the COVID vaccine.
COVID Vaccines for Children Age 6 Months Through 4 Years: FAQs for Families
Babies and young kids should get the updated COVID vaccine. The vaccine is recommended for everyone age 6 months and up. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for infants and children in this age group...www.healthychildren.org
Then, email the AAP and ask them why you think they're "afraid". Because this is their recommendation posted/updated as of last month.
Indeed. The AAP does NOT represent your average, home town pediatrician. But hey, Joe says write them an email. 🤣
So, the actual members of the Academy — and there's more than 64,000 pediatricians who are part of this Academy — it's very prestigious — a lot of them are very upset over this $3 million in funding. When I spoke to them, they said they couldn't believe that the Academy had partnered with Coke or worked with it to any extent, because sugary drinks are considered a very major factor in the obesity epidemic, especially among children.
These pediatricians see the effects of it firsthand. They see type 2 diabetes, hypertension. You know, all these diseases that used to occur in middle age and later in life, they see them in children now. And they think that sugary drinks are a primary influence of that. So, pediatricians were very upset.
American Academy of Pediatrics decides relationship with Coke is not so sweet
Coca-Cola, the world's largest producer of sugary beverages, had been a partner and sponsor of the American Academy of Pediatrics. But the Academy is now ending its relationship after revelations that the company has paid for scientific research playing down the role of soda in obesity. Hari...
www.pbs.org
To induce the most rapid weight loss possible, the AAP recommends several medical treatments for children that could permanently harm their physical and mental development. Among them is a drug called orlistat, a pill that stops fat nutrient absorption in the digestive system by preventing the release of fat-processing enzymes and costs $803 per month. Another, semaglutide, is a regular injection that reduces appetite by mimicking hormones and slowing digestion and costs $1,627 per month. The most concerning recommendation is bariatric surgery, an invasive procedure that reroutes and removes portions of the digestive tract to reduce appetite and nutrient absorption, and it costs $23,000.
Why would the AAP advise such drastic courses of action when basic diet and exercise are the safest options for children? Look no further than the AAP’s list of top donors, mostly comprised of both ultra-processed-food manufacturers — whose products make children sick and obese — and pharmaceutical companies that sell expensive medications to cure them. The most telling names among them include GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of orlistat, and Novo Nordisk, manufacturer of semaglutide.
Several others among the top 10 donors listed on the AAP website are Rickitt-Mead Johnson Nutrition and Abbott Nutrition, the leading producers of baby formula. In the United States, baby formula is made from highly processed corn, not milk, and makes our children 14 percentage points, or 74 percent, more likely to be overweight or obese compared to those exclusively fed breast milk. The government provides such baby formula to the 43 percent of our families poor enough to qualify for public assistance, which explains part of why children from impoverished families are more than twice as likely to be obese. Regardless, it’s significant to note that joining the AAP’s top 10 donors list are Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, two of the three companies supplying the United States with insulin to treat diabetes, which often accompanies obesity.
AAP's Obesity Treatments Prioritize Big Pharma Over Kids' Health
The American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing drugs and surgeries that benefit donors and squeeze money out of vulnerable families.
thefederalist.com
Correct. They represent the entire group, not "the average ones". The exceptional ones, too.
Indeed. The AAP does NOT represent your average, home town pediatrician. But hey, Joe says write them an email. 🤣
So, the actual members of the Academy — and there's more than 64,000 pediatricians who are part of this Academy — it's very prestigious — a lot of them are very upset over this $3 million in funding. When I spoke to them, they said they couldn't believe that the Academy had partnered with Coke or worked with it to any extent, because sugary drinks are considered a very major factor in the obesity epidemic, especially among children.
These pediatricians see the effects of it firsthand. They see type 2 diabetes, hypertension. You know, all these diseases that used to occur in middle age and later in life, they see them in children now. And they think that sugary drinks are a primary influence of that. So, pediatricians were very upset.
American Academy of Pediatrics decides relationship with Coke is not so sweet
Coca-Cola, the world's largest producer of sugary beverages, had been a partner and sponsor of the American Academy of Pediatrics. But the Academy is now ending its relationship after revelations that the company has paid for scientific research playing down the role of soda in obesity. Hari...
To induce the most rapid weight loss possible, the AAP recommends several medical treatments for children that could permanently harm their physical and mental development. Among them is a drug called orlistat, a pill that stops fat nutrient absorption in the digestive system by preventing the release of fat-processing enzymes and costs $803 per month. Another, semaglutide, is a regular injection that reduces appetite by mimicking hormones and slowing digestion and costs $1,627 per month. The most concerning recommendation is bariatric surgery, an invasive procedure that reroutes and removes portions of the digestive tract to reduce appetite and nutrient absorption, and it costs $23,000.
Why would the AAP advise such drastic courses of action when basic diet and exercise are the safest options for children? Look no further than the AAP’s list of top donors, mostly comprised of both ultra-processed-food manufacturers — whose products make children sick and obese — and pharmaceutical companies that sell expensive medications to cure them. The most telling names among them include GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of orlistat, and Novo Nordisk, manufacturer of semaglutide.
Several others among the top 10 donors listed on the AAP website are Rickitt-Mead Johnson Nutrition and Abbott Nutrition, the leading producers of baby formula. In the United States, baby formula is made from highly processed corn, not milk, and makes our children 14 percentage points, or 74 percent, more likely to be overweight or obese compared to those exclusively fed breast milk. The government provides such baby formula to the 43 percent of our families poor enough to qualify for public assistance, which explains part of why children from impoverished families are more than twice as likely to be obese. Regardless, it’s significant to note that joining the AAP’s top 10 donors list are Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, two of the three companies supplying the United States with insulin to treat diabetes, which often accompanies obesity.
AAP's Obesity Treatments Prioritize Big Pharma Over Kids' Health
The American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing drugs and surgeries that benefit donors and squeeze money out of vulnerable families.
Shorter: AAP cut ties with donors that pushed products inconsistent with their messaging and with pediatric health. Film at 11.
Indeed. The AAP does NOT represent your average, home town pediatrician. But hey, Joe says write them an email. 🤣
So, the actual members of the Academy — and there's more than 64,000 pediatricians who are part of this Academy — it's very prestigious — a lot of them are very upset over this $3 million in funding. When I spoke to them, they said they couldn't believe that the Academy had partnered with Coke or worked with it to any extent, because sugary drinks are considered a very major factor in the obesity epidemic, especially among children.
These pediatricians see the effects of it firsthand. They see type 2 diabetes, hypertension. You know, all these diseases that used to occur in middle age and later in life, they see them in children now. And they think that sugary drinks are a primary influence of that. So, pediatricians were very upset.
American Academy of Pediatrics decides relationship with Coke is not so sweet
Coca-Cola, the world's largest producer of sugary beverages, had been a partner and sponsor of the American Academy of Pediatrics. But the Academy is now ending its relationship after revelations that the company has paid for scientific research playing down the role of soda in obesity. Hari...
To induce the most rapid weight loss possible, the AAP recommends several medical treatments for children that could permanently harm their physical and mental development. Among them is a drug called orlistat, a pill that stops fat nutrient absorption in the digestive system by preventing the release of fat-processing enzymes and costs $803 per month. Another, semaglutide, is a regular injection that reduces appetite by mimicking hormones and slowing digestion and costs $1,627 per month. The most concerning recommendation is bariatric surgery, an invasive procedure that reroutes and removes portions of the digestive tract to reduce appetite and nutrient absorption, and it costs $23,000.
Why would the AAP advise such drastic courses of action when basic diet and exercise are the safest options for children? Look no further than the AAP’s list of top donors, mostly comprised of both ultra-processed-food manufacturers — whose products make children sick and obese — and pharmaceutical companies that sell expensive medications to cure them. The most telling names among them include GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of orlistat, and Novo Nordisk, manufacturer of semaglutide.
Several others among the top 10 donors listed on the AAP website are Rickitt-Mead Johnson Nutrition and Abbott Nutrition, the leading producers of baby formula. In the United States, baby formula is made from highly processed corn, not milk, and makes our children 14 percentage points, or 74 percent, more likely to be overweight or obese compared to those exclusively fed breast milk. The government provides such baby formula to the 43 percent of our families poor enough to qualify for public assistance, which explains part of why children from impoverished families are more than twice as likely to be obese. Regardless, it’s significant to note that joining the AAP’s top 10 donors list are Sanofi and Novo Nordisk, two of the three companies supplying the United States with insulin to treat diabetes, which often accompanies obesity.
AAP's Obesity Treatments Prioritize Big Pharma Over Kids' Health
The American Academy of Pediatrics is pushing drugs and surgeries that benefit donors and squeeze money out of vulnerable families.
🙄
The Federalist - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
mediabiasfactcheck.com
So stupid.
You might have a point if they cut ties with Coke because they all of a sudden started selling Coke.
Another fact checker. Humans with agendas playing God.🙄
The Federalist - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
So stupid.
And people actually buying into it.
So stupid.
🙄
The Federalist - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
So stupid.
They LOVE to pull their "news" from sources that have low reliability.
Then, they are flummoxed that people with actual educations routinely school them...
You probably wish you did a little of this with your Mark Wahlberg post. Never forget!
Of course you failed to address the problems with the msm, they've been sooo trustworthy🤣
So you've got to talk crap about people finding alternative outlets, makes great sense. Try addressing the root cause of the problem.
I'm sure they're not perfect, but the alternative media outlets are so much more trustworthy than the mainstream and it's not close.
LOL. Davey Van Zandt is a liberal, left wing puke. There's NOTHING unbiased coming out of MBFC. 🤣🤣🤣🙄
The Federalist - Bias and Credibility
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
So stupid.
They cut ties because they got caught and their responsible members were pissed about it.
Don't worry. The AAP will find plenty more corporate whoring opportunities. Probably focus more on pharmaceutical companies than soft drink ones. 🤣
🤣
Their methods are listed.
Check your sources in any checker. They all say you nutcases are full of it.
Another verified dunce.
But their members support vaccinations nearly 100%. Because they see, firsthand, what happens when kids don't get vaccines.
What happens when kids don't get vaccines, Joe? And when will those 'things' start happening to my unvaccinated kids?
#FearMongeringProfiteers
#FearMongeringProfiteers
