That study is trying to establish the link between COVID and myocarditis, hence the exclusion of vaccinated patients as in those patients, myocarditis might have been triggered by COVID, or the vaccine, or both.

There would be a perfect study to review the results of this very thing ..... to bad the drug companies, fda, cdc, etc compromised the study, didn't properly blind it, ran it poorly, and then got rid of the control group when they vaccinated everyone. It would be a perfect example and show findings that would be close to proven (as long as they properly selected each group but that isn't a guarantee with all the other issues).

The reason you aren't hearing the info, aren't seeing autopsy reports, etc is they are vaccinated for the most part. You just need to see their social media posts to see they were vaccinated. It also is occurring in countries with high vaccinated % and lower vaccinated countries are not showing the same increase.
You can try and explain away all the individual data points but at some point you have to finally admit you were duped.


It was perfectly fine to ask everyone if they were vaccinated but now that everyone is dying you can't ask if they were vaccinated now?

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

---

That study is trying to establish the link between COVID and myocarditis, hence the exclusion of vaccinated patients as in those patients, myocarditis might have been triggered by COVID, or the vaccine, or both.

There would be a perfect study to review the results of this very thing ..... to bad the drug companies, fda, cdc, etc compromised the study, didn't properly blind it, ran it poorly, and then got rid of the control group when they vaccinated everyone. It would be a perfect example and show findings that would be close to proven (as long as they properly selected each group but that isn't a guarantee with all the other issues).

The reason you aren't hearing the info, aren't seeing autopsy reports, etc is they are vaccinated for the most part. You just need to see their social media posts to see they were vaccinated. It also is occurring in countries with high vaccinated % and lower vaccinated countries are not showing the same increase.
You can try and explain away all the individual data points but at some point you have to finally admit you were duped.


It was perfectly fine to ask everyone if they were vaccinated but now that everyone is dying you can't ask if they were vaccinated now?

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Sure they may have been vaccinated but had they also had COVID.  If so, how do you conclude the vaccine was the cause and not COVID?

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

As usual the counter to the points made by anti-vaxxers is readily available to those who care to actually know what's going on.

https://yourlocalepidemiologist.substack...den-deaths

The most real statement in the whole thing:

"It was a mess of an analysis. But that didn’t matter because the seed was sown. The rumor filled an information void, and it went viral."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Your kind are so pretentious, man. I always go in hoping to learn something, and, without fail, there's always a leap of faith. I don't get it. There is some interesting data, but none of it definitely proves what she's claiming. 

I don't like these age-adjusted graphs they've adopted. You would think a critical thinker such as yourself would want to see the actual numbers, but they stopped showing those in the US. Why? Age-adjusted doesn't meant that it's true for every age group. It's just a formula where they plug in the numbers for everyone and get an aggregate, but how is that helpful when the disease is so detrimental to older people? We can't be getting an accurate picture with those numbers. They have the data, why not release it to the public? 

Then you get these gems:

If you’re wondering why there’s a gap between COVID deaths and excess deaths — according to the study’s lead author, Dr. Jeremy Faust, it’s likely “a combination of non-medical deaths like accidental overdose and also, we strongly believe, things like heart attacks that were actually instigated by COVID.

In an article "proving" why COVID is the culprit, she literally guesses why there's an unexplained gap of sudden deaths. This whole thing is supposed to disprove that vaccines are contributors yet uses circular reasoning to arrive at that conclusion (among other factors that aren't definitive). Moreover, those graphs are very incomplete. I can't fault the researchers for only using the data they are given, but let's take the following, for example:


This graph is missing the entire year of 2023. They want to use only a few months of data to justify the claim that vaccines stopped young people from dying? Correlation does not equal causation, and it's a fool's errand to make that type of assumption with such a complicated issue. It could be just as likely that a vast majority of young people had caught COVID, which was naturally ebbing around the same time as vaccination rollouts. We know that it was spreading like wildfire among the younger population. With only 2 more months of data, we certainly can't tell from that graph if it's actually solved the problem or not. I welcome something that shows us what happened the last year. I tried looking it up but can't find it anywhere. 

Out of curiosity, do you know what brought down deaths from 2003 to 2021? Because we were clearly having heart issues 20 years ago that rivaled the numbers during the pandemic. Again, keeping in mind that we are only talking about a small number of deaths per month, so it's not hard to make that graph look certain ways. It's always fun with numbers. 

One more thing, she didn't even mention the Oxford study, which proved higher myocarditis numbers for men under 40 than the vaccine. Again, don't address that by linking some believer's opinion. I will accept that Peter McCullough didn't compare apples to apples. Can you do the same when they treat 1 shot as fully vaccinated, when the requirement is 2? The only reason they cite 1 shot is because 2 shots put the numbers in favor of the unvaccinated. That's just manipulation. 

Part of the reason I have deviated from following this subject is because it's harder and harder to find unbiased information. I really have to get into the numbers myself and it's a pain in the [BLEEP]. Also, once people laid off mandatory vaccinations, it didn't seem as big a deal. However, learning that they are talking about making vaccines a yearly occurrence is going to fire me up again. You still can't tell me exact numbers of anything by age. It's unconscionable that that information is not readily accessible for us.

---

Never Forget what these clowns did…


https://twitter.com/emeraldrobinson/stat...vXAGYW-NQA

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

https://twitter.com/jamesokeefeiii/statu...tHReY4aW1w

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

https://twitter.com/jamesokeefeiii/statu...tHReY4aW1w

Yes, people who know nothing about what we do and how we do it will not understand what I'm talking about and create bull [BLEEP] viral talking points to rile up the uneducated masses. Then semi-literate data junkies will spend hours parsing the numbers trying their damndest to find some error in our methodology so they can pretend that they were right all along about basic exceptions that we all knew existed and told everyone were there before we started.

That's almost exactly what's happened for almost 3 years now.

---

Your kind are so pretentious, man. I always go in hoping to learn something, and, without fail, there's always a leap of faith. I don't get it. There is some interesting data, but none of it definitely proves what she's claiming. 

I don't like these age-adjusted graphs they've adopted. You would think a critical thinker such as yourself would want to see the actual numbers, but they stopped showing those in the US. Why? Age-adjusted doesn't meant that it's true for every age group. It's just a formula where they plug in the numbers for everyone and get an aggregate, but how is that helpful when the disease is so detrimental to older people? We can't be getting an accurate picture with those numbers. They have the data, why not release it to the public? 

Then you get these gems:

If you’re wondering why there’s a gap between COVID deaths and excess deaths — according to the study’s lead author, Dr. Jeremy Faust, it’s likely “a combination of non-medical deaths like accidental overdose and also, we strongly believe, things like heart attacks that were actually instigated by COVID.

In an article "proving" why COVID is the culprit, she literally guesses why there's an unexplained gap of sudden deaths. This whole thing is supposed to disprove that vaccines are contributors yet uses circular reasoning to arrive at that conclusion (among other factors that aren't definitive). Moreover, those graphs are very incomplete. I can't fault the researchers for only using the data they are given, but let's take the following, for example:


This graph is missing the entire year of 2023. They want to use only a few months of data to justify the claim that vaccines stopped young people from dying? Correlation does not equal causation, and it's a fool's errand to make that type of assumption with such a complicated issue. It could be just as likely that a vast majority of young people had caught COVID, which was naturally ebbing around the same time as vaccination rollouts. We know that it was spreading like wildfire among the younger population. With only 2 more months of data, we certainly can't tell from that graph if it's actually solved the problem or not. I welcome something that shows us what happened the last year. I tried looking it up but can't find it anywhere. 

Out of curiosity, do you know what brought down deaths from 2003 to 2021? Because we were clearly having heart issues 20 years ago that rivaled the numbers during the pandemic. Again, keeping in mind that we are only talking about a small number of deaths per month, so it's not hard to make that graph look certain ways. It's always fun with numbers. 

One more thing, she didn't even mention the Oxford study, which proved higher myocarditis numbers for men under 40 than the vaccine. Again, don't address that by linking some believer's opinion. I will accept that Peter McCullough didn't compare apples to apples. Can you do the same when they treat 1 shot as fully vaccinated, when the requirement is 2? The only reason they cite 1 shot is because 2 shots put the numbers in favor of the unvaccinated. That's just manipulation. 

Part of the reason I have deviated from following this subject is because it's harder and harder to find unbiased information. I really have to get into the numbers myself and it's a pain in the [BLEEP]. Also, once people laid off mandatory vaccinations, it didn't seem as big a deal. However, learning that they are talking about making vaccines a yearly occurrence is going to fire me up again. You still can't tell me exact numbers of anything by age. It's unconscionable that that information is not readily accessible for us.

Just to be clear, you think you know more than the 2 Yale doctors who presented this information. Just so we can really gauge who the pretentious one is in this discussion.

Hint: It's not "my kind."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Ah man, you edited your post. This is going to come across awful hostile without that subtext. Marty is always getting onto me for not replying to others, and it finally bit me in the [BLEEP]. Oh well... snark incoming.

---

Thanks for proving my point. 

Yale trained doesn't mean infallible. I mean, I guess it does if you're a pretentious [BLEEP] that relies on appeal to authority to win arguments. I guess I just can't question anything because I'm just a giant [BLEEP] compared to the EXPERTS! Hey admins... can we shut down this forum please? Apparently, the EXPERTS have solved everything and the rest of us simpletons just need to do what we're told. Everyone give a +1 to FSG, and let's just slide into our role as subservient [BLEEP] peons. You really cleared [BLEEP] up with that rant. From now on, we may all only comment in fields in which we are EXPERTS. HOORAY FOR PROGRESS!

When did you turds become convinced the science is settled? What? There are zero epistemologists that disagree with her?  How many times have these people who "know more than me" been wrong? We have a 462 page where you can compare. Go back and find ALL the times I was wrong. It's not been much. Answer me this. Did that Yale trained lady ever ONCE say that the vaccines stopped the spread? You did, but I'm hoping she's smarter than you, since you're a self-admitted simpleton whose incapable of challenging the "EXPERTS." But let's see if our savior, the Yale trained epistemologist, ever said that. Then we can know if she's infallible.

It's funny... NEVER ONCE did I say she was WRONG. I simply pointed out several shortcomings in her data and reasoning. Meaning simply that she didn't PROVE you right, despite her godlike status in your eyes. There are still questions that need to be answered before confidently asserting that strong a position, yet you call me pretentious for pointing out basic scientific concepts? Laughable.  Did you even bother addressing ANY of my points in that little rant of yours? Or did you just choose to ignore the legitimate points I made because of your own self-appointed superiority.

Your track record has been spotty, and I'm being generous. Why? Because you refuse to be critical of authorities, even though they have been wrong multiple times and are actively obfuscating data. I have repeatedly, throughout this thread, asked for data that should be publicly available, and you have not been able to provide it for me. Have I ever ONCE said the vaccine is ineffective? I always been a proponent of the elderly and at-risk getting this vaccine. I have been against the general population being mandated to get the vaccine and THAT is it, which includes hospital workers. I have asked for data that definitively proves it's needed for people under 50 who are otherwise healthy, which would be easy to do with solid age restricted data. You can't show me that data because it's being intentionally kept hidden from the public. The simple truth is that you DON'T KNOW. You can assume. Just like they did in the infallible article you posted.  The "experts" feel like they are above reproach, and they treat us like we are stupid. Well, some folks might be, but I'm not. All I have asked for is good, scientific data, that is unbiased, peer reviewed, and repeatable. The "EXPERTS" have not provided it.

Your kind believes you are above being challenged. That's textbook pretentiousness. You have almost ZERO epistemic humility, even though you have been WRONG repeatedly. So, yeah... I have the temerity to call you pretentious. I think it's hilarious you even inserted the word "temerity," because you and your kind have earned it, pal. You are welcome to go back and show me where I have been wrong over and over again. Should be easy enough to do, right? Even then, it wouldn't matter, because I am not asserting my opinion as infallible. I'm just questioning how we are arriving at certain conclusions.

We have corrupted and broken system, man, and I don't think you even realize how you are complicit in perpetuating this system. It's creating the Ronsters, because, while they might not be inclined to read studies, they can sense when they're being told lies. You know... kind of like you and the fraudulent elections. You're not an expert, but you can smell [BLEEP]. Powerful people coopt institutions and change them to suit their needs. The healthcare industry is no different, and you only can't see it because you want to believe you are part of something special. You are, but it can't stay that way as long as you and your peers keep allowing big pharma and big insurance to bend people over so they can get rich. You'd rather get mad at me for pointing out basic research flaws than to risk standing out against your peers, and that is EXACTLY why we are losing trust in our institutions.

Look man, snark aside, I don't think you're a bad guy. I think we need people like you, and, ultimately, I know you want to help people. I just think you need to start recognizing what's happening. You and many others like you, because people like me can't win this fight for the integrity of our institutions. It's going to take you guys to shake it up from the bottom up.

---

Never Forget what these clowns did…


https://twitter.com/emeraldrobinson/stat...vXAGYW-NQA

The most overworked people during the pandemic are clowns to you.

For shame!!  I hope you never need a nurse in the future.

---

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

There would be a perfect study to review the results of this very thing ..... to bad the drug companies, fda, cdc, etc compromised the study, didn't properly blind it, ran it poorly, and then got rid of the control group when they vaccinated everyone. It would be a perfect example and show findings that would be close to proven (as long as they properly selected each group but that isn't a guarantee with all the other issues).

The reason you aren't hearing the info, aren't seeing autopsy reports, etc is they are vaccinated for the most part. You just need to see their social media posts to see they were vaccinated. It also is occurring in countries with high vaccinated % and lower vaccinated countries are not showing the same increase.
You can try and explain away all the individual data points but at some point you have to finally admit you were duped.


It was perfectly fine to ask everyone if they were vaccinated but now that everyone is dying you can't ask if they were vaccinated now?

Sent from my SM-T970 using Tapatalk

Sure they may have been vaccinated but had they also had COVID.  If so, how do you conclude the vaccine was the cause and not COVID?

The control group wouldn't have been vaccinated. That's the whole point of a blind study.


THAT'S WHY THEY VACCINATED THE CONTROL GROUP AFTER THEY "FINISHED" the short study and claimed victory. If the control group is fine and everyone is dying in the vaccinated group now, then you clearly see there is an issue.

It was all done to hide all the side effects.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

https://twitter.com/jamesokeefeiii/statu...tHReY4aW1w

Roger Federer’s Wife Mirka’s Paris Fashion Week Outfit Melts Down Internet

https://vervetimes.com/roger-federers-wi...-internet/

So is the internet blowing up or melting down.

So confused.

---

R.I.P. Stroudcrowd1

Ah man, you edited your post. This is going to come across awful hostile without that subtext. Marty is always getting onto me for not replying to others, and it finally bit me in the [BLEEP]. Oh well... snark incoming.

---

Thanks for proving my point. 

Yale trained doesn't mean infallible. I mean, I guess it does if you're a pretentious [BLEEP] that relies on appeal to authority to win arguments. I guess I just can't question anything because I'm just a giant [BLEEP] compared to the EXPERTS! Hey admins... can we shut down this forum please? Apparently, the EXPERTS have solved everything and the rest of us simpletons just need to do what we're told. Everyone give a +1 to FSG, and let's just slide into our role as subservient [BLEEP] peons. You really cleared [BLEEP] up with that rant. From now on, we may all only comment in fields in which we are EXPERTS. HOORAY FOR PROGRESS!

When did you turds become convinced the science is settled? What? There are zero epistemologists that disagree with her?  How many times have these people who "know more than me" been wrong? We have a 462 page where you can compare. Go back and find ALL the times I was wrong. It's not been much. Answer me this. Did that Yale trained lady ever ONCE say that the vaccines stopped the spread? You did, but I'm hoping she's smarter than you, since you're a self-admitted simpleton whose incapable of challenging the "EXPERTS." But let's see if our savior, the Yale trained epistemologist, ever said that. Then we can know if she's infallible.

It's funny... NEVER ONCE did I say she was WRONG. I simply pointed out several shortcomings in her data and reasoning. Meaning simply that she didn't PROVE you right, despite her godlike status in your eyes. There are still questions that need to be answered before confidently asserting that strong a position, yet you call me pretentious for pointing out basic scientific concepts? Laughable.  Did you even bother addressing ANY of my points in that little rant of yours? Or did you just choose to ignore the legitimate points I made because of your own self-appointed superiority.

Your track record has been spotty, and I'm being generous. Why? Because you refuse to be critical of authorities, even though they have been wrong multiple times and are actively obfuscating data. I have repeatedly, throughout this thread, asked for data that should be publicly available, and you have not been able to provide it for me. Have I ever ONCE said the vaccine is ineffective? I always been a proponent of the elderly and at-risk getting this vaccine. I have been against the general population being mandated to get the vaccine and THAT is it, which includes hospital workers. I have asked for data that definitively proves it's needed for people under 50 who are otherwise healthy, which would be easy to do with solid age restricted data. You can't show me that data because it's being intentionally kept hidden from the public. The simple truth is that you DON'T KNOW. You can assume. Just like they did in the infallible article you posted.  The "experts" feel like they are above reproach, and they treat us like we are stupid. Well, some folks might be, but I'm not. All I have asked for is good, scientific data, that is unbiased, peer reviewed, and repeatable. The "EXPERTS" have not provided it.

Your kind believes you are above being challenged. That's textbook pretentiousness. You have almost ZERO epistemic humility, even though you have been WRONG repeatedly. So, yeah... I have the temerity to call you pretentious. I think it's hilarious you even inserted the word "temerity," because you and your kind have earned it, pal. You are welcome to go back and show me where I have been wrong over and over again. Should be easy enough to do, right? Even then, it wouldn't matter, because I am not asserting my opinion as infallible. I'm just questioning how we are arriving at certain conclusions.

We have corrupted and broken system, man, and I don't think you even realize how you are complicit in perpetuating this system. It's creating the Ronsters, because, while they might not be inclined to read studies, they can sense when they're being told lies. You know... kind of like you and the fraudulent elections. You're not an expert, but you can smell [BLEEP]. Powerful people coopt institutions and change them to suit their needs. The healthcare industry is no different, and you only can't see it because you want to believe you are part of something special. You are, but it can't stay that way as long as you and your peers keep allowing big pharma and big insurance to bend people over so they can get rich. You'd rather get mad at me for pointing out basic research flaws than to risk standing out against your peers, and that is EXACTLY why we are losing trust in our institutions.

Look man, snark aside, I don't think you're a bad guy. I think we need people like you, and, ultimately, I know you want to help people. I just think you need to start recognizing what's happening. You and many others like you, because people like me can't win this fight for the integrity of our institutions. It's going to take you guys to shake it up from the bottom up.

Boy, that touched a nerve didn't it. Lol. I'm not asserting my opinion as infallible, though you still like to single me out as the whipping boy for all of academia and healthcare, I just simply post interesting stats, studies, and articles that support my opinion that you jump to discredit. It's not my job to convince you of anything, and it's even more clear that I couldn't anyway.

And yeah, I edited my post. No need to pick fights when I'm drunk. I got control of that after puberty.

---

Sure they may have been vaccinated but had they also had COVID.  If so, how do you conclude the vaccine was the cause and not COVID?

The control group wouldn't have been vaccinated. That's the whole point of a blind study.


THAT'S WHY THEY VACCINATED THE CONTROL GROUP AFTER THEY "FINISHED" the short study and claimed victory. If the control group is fine and everyone is dying in the vaccinated group now, then you clearly see there is an issue.

It was all done to hide all the side effects.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Wow, that pretty crazy that they told you that!

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Ah man, you edited your post. This is going to come across awful hostile without that subtext. Marty is always getting onto me for not replying to others, and it finally bit me in the [BLEEP]. Oh well... snark incoming.

---

Thanks for proving my point. 

Yale trained doesn't mean infallible. I mean, I guess it does if you're a pretentious [BLEEP] that relies on appeal to authority to win arguments. I guess I just can't question anything because I'm just a giant [BLEEP] compared to the EXPERTS! Hey admins... can we shut down this forum please? Apparently, the EXPERTS have solved everything and the rest of us simpletons just need to do what we're told. Everyone give a +1 to FSG, and let's just slide into our role as subservient [BLEEP] peons. You really cleared [BLEEP] up with that rant. From now on, we may all only comment in fields in which we are EXPERTS. HOORAY FOR PROGRESS!

When did you turds become convinced the science is settled? What? There are zero epistemologists that disagree with her?  How many times have these people who "know more than me" been wrong? We have a 462 page where you can compare. Go back and find ALL the times I was wrong. It's not been much. Answer me this. Did that Yale trained lady ever ONCE say that the vaccines stopped the spread? You did, but I'm hoping she's smarter than you, since you're a self-admitted simpleton whose incapable of challenging the "EXPERTS." But let's see if our savior, the Yale trained epistemologist, ever said that. Then we can know if she's infallible.

It's funny... NEVER ONCE did I say she was WRONG. I simply pointed out several shortcomings in her data and reasoning. Meaning simply that she didn't PROVE you right, despite her godlike status in your eyes. There are still questions that need to be answered before confidently asserting that strong a position, yet you call me pretentious for pointing out basic scientific concepts? Laughable.  Did you even bother addressing ANY of my points in that little rant of yours? Or did you just choose to ignore the legitimate points I made because of your own self-appointed superiority.

Your track record has been spotty, and I'm being generous. Why? Because you refuse to be critical of authorities, even though they have been wrong multiple times and are actively obfuscating data. I have repeatedly, throughout this thread, asked for data that should be publicly available, and you have not been able to provide it for me. Have I ever ONCE said the vaccine is ineffective? I always been a proponent of the elderly and at-risk getting this vaccine. I have been against the general population being mandated to get the vaccine and THAT is it, which includes hospital workers. I have asked for data that definitively proves it's needed for people under 50 who are otherwise healthy, which would be easy to do with solid age restricted data. You can't show me that data because it's being intentionally kept hidden from the public. The simple truth is that you DON'T KNOW. You can assume. Just like they did in the infallible article you posted.  The "experts" feel like they are above reproach, and they treat us like we are stupid. Well, some folks might be, but I'm not. All I have asked for is good, scientific data, that is unbiased, peer reviewed, and repeatable. The "EXPERTS" have not provided it.

Your kind believes you are above being challenged. That's textbook pretentiousness. You have almost ZERO epistemic humility, even though you have been WRONG repeatedly. So, yeah... I have the temerity to call you pretentious. I think it's hilarious you even inserted the word "temerity," because you and your kind have earned it, pal. You are welcome to go back and show me where I have been wrong over and over again. Should be easy enough to do, right? Even then, it wouldn't matter, because I am not asserting my opinion as infallible. I'm just questioning how we are arriving at certain conclusions.

We have corrupted and broken system, man, and I don't think you even realize how you are complicit in perpetuating this system. It's creating the Ronsters, because, while they might not be inclined to read studies, they can sense when they're being told lies. You know... kind of like you and the fraudulent elections. You're not an expert, but you can smell [BLEEP]. Powerful people coopt institutions and change them to suit their needs. The healthcare industry is no different, and you only can't see it because you want to believe you are part of something special. You are, but it can't stay that way as long as you and your peers keep allowing big pharma and big insurance to bend people over so they can get rich. You'd rather get mad at me for pointing out basic research flaws than to risk standing out against your peers, and that is EXACTLY why we are losing trust in our institutions.

Look man, snark aside, I don't think you're a bad guy. I think we need people like you, and, ultimately, I know you want to help people. I just think you need to start recognizing what's happening. You and many others like you, because people like me can't win this fight for the integrity of our institutions. It's going to take you guys to shake it up from the bottom up.

You called people turds? Hahahah

You’re such a big baby. Stop being obsessed with FSG.

---

Well, that's why you still don't get it. I am not obsessed with FSG. I like FSG. I would hang out with him today if he wanted, and I would have zero animosity towards him. I like pretty much everyone on this forum. Even you, the White Knight, Defender of the Brash. Warrior of the Internet. Vanquisher of Critical Thought, and General Nuisance. I'd have a beer with both of you.

FSG is the one that came out swinging. He just toned it down after the fact. He probably shouldn't say "That struck a nerve," after attacking me without addressing any of my points. Of course, it struck a nerve. It doesn't bother me. It's not like I lost sleep over it. I just posted what I thought. I am no different IRL. I say what I think. I concern myself with truth. I can be a real smartass, and I can be aggressive. Those last two things rarely ever happen unless someone starts using disingenuous tactics.

Unlike you, I don't really concern myself with people. I concern myself with facts, and the vast majority of my post is calling out how we are gathering, processing, and sharing data. If the institutions can't be competent and transparent, they won't be trusted, and I think if the experts can't answer justifiable concerns, they should come off the strength of their positions. The only people who can't do one of those two things are believers, and we don't need those in the healthcare industry.

FSG is probably right in that I make him the poster boy for what's wrong in the industry. This is why I tried to temper my aggressiveness with pointing out what I think he does well. However, in my eyes, him, and others like him, who become unwittingly apologists and enforces for greedy corporations, are the reason our healthcare system is failing. It's not their fault. They can't make money without Medicare and insurance has them bent over a barrel. Big Pharma lies about their data, yet basically staffs the CDC that makes the recommendations that doctors are trained to implement. That still doesn't change the fact that doctors and administrators HAVE to be the bulwark against the profit driven industries that are ruining healthcare. They are going to have to make some hard choices in the near future. I want him and his peers to hold people accountable, and that can't happen if he's not even acknowledging how broken it all is. His whole profession is dropping the ball.

It's interesting to me how you still cannot seem to have a conversation about anything that doesn't involve people. There's a lot of questions I raised in my last two posts that went unanswered. FSG came in hot, then edited his post before I finished mine. I chose to leave mine as is. You are welcome to answer ANY of those concerns I brought up, but it might be hard to read with your helmet on.

---

Well, that's why you still don't get it. I am not obsessed with FSG. I like FSG. I would hang out with him today if he wanted, and I would have zero animosity towards him. I like pretty much everyone on this forum. Even you, the White Knight, Defender of the Brash. Warrior of the Internet. Vanquisher of Critical Thought, and General Nuisance. I'd have a beer with both of you.

FSG is the one that came out swinging. He just toned it down after the fact. He probably shouldn't say "That struck a nerve," after attacking me without addressing any of my points. Of course, it struck a nerve. It doesn't bother me. It's not like I lost sleep over it. I just posted what I thought. I am no different IRL. I say what I think. I concern myself with truth. I can be a real smartass, and I can be aggressive. Those last two things rarely ever happen unless someone starts using disingenuous tactics.

Unlike you, I don't really concern myself with people. I concern myself with facts, and the vast majority of my post is calling out how we are gathering, processing, and sharing data. If the institutions can't be competent and transparent, they won't be trusted, and I think if the experts can't answer justifiable concerns, they should come off the strength of their positions. The only people who can't do one of those two things are believers, and we don't need those in the healthcare industry.

FSG is probably right in that I make him the poster boy for what's wrong in the industry. This is why I tried to temper my aggressiveness with pointing out what I think he does well. However, in my eyes, him, and others like him, who become unwittingly apologists and enforces for greedy corporations, are the reason our healthcare system is failing. It's not their fault. They can't make money without Medicare and insurance has them bent over a barrel.  Big Pharma lies about their data, yet basically staffs the CDC that makes the recommendations that doctors are trained to implement. That still doesn't change the fact that doctors and administrators HAVE to be the bulwark against the profit driven industries that are ruining healthcare. They are going to have to make some hard choices in the near future. I want him and his peers to hold people accountable, and that can't happen if he's not even acknowledging how broken it all is. His whole profession is dropping the ball.

It's interesting to me how you still cannot seem to have a conversation about anything that doesn't involve people. There's a lot of questions I raised in my last two posts that went unanswered. FSG came in hot, then edited his post before I finished mine. I chose to leave mine as is. You are welcome to answer ANY of those concerns I brought up, but it might be hard to read with your helmet on.

Pass.

I've had plenty of conversations with people on this board about a ton of different things. What I don't do is come over to this cess pool and have full on conversations because I think it's a lost cause. I do venture over here sometimes and when something catches my eye, I'll make a driveby comment. Like when you called a bunch of people turds. Like... who still calls people turds? Oh I know! A 6 year old I was teaching last week called his friend a turd and it was hilarious! But the fact that you still use that term is equally as funny.

I spend 95% of my time on this board discussing football (on a football message board! who woulda thought!) and 5% perusing this dumpster fire of Drifter threads, Ronster tweets, p_rushing theories with no links and you begging FSG for interaction.

---

Lol. Then drive by, turd.

---

I do hope that we can laugh at some of this stuff, the interactions here are best viewed through the lense of humour. I have no ill will towards anyone, and I think you all know that. Except JaguarsWoman, that dude can get bent.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I agree. I never have ill will in my posts. In fact, all of my posts should be interpreted as being performed by Bill Burr. That would pretty much nail the sentiment.

---

I do hope that we can laugh at some of this stuff, the interactions here are best viewed through the lense of humour. I have no ill will towards anyone, and I think you all know that. Except JaguarsWoman, that dude can get bent.

Jaguars Woman was a dude?

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"

Never Forget what these clowns did…


https://twitter.com/emeraldrobinson/stat...vXAGYW-NQA

The most overworked people during the pandemic are clowns to you.

For shame!!  I hope you never need a nurse in the future.

---

Clowns was me being nice, more like co-conspiracists too genocide. They are complicit to the vaccine holocaust

---

"If you always do what you've always done, You'll always get what you always got"