We don't know it without reading the original study in detail
I mean, there's an obvious conclusion based on the data. And it isn't "OMG THEY ARE COMMITTING MASS MURDER WITH PLACEBOS".
I'm not going to do that since you're obviously not going to the effort of reading either of the 2 links provided.
I don't read stuff from random blogs, but I am surprised that you do read it and then proceed to take it seriously.
Placebos should not be producing statistically significant rates of adverse events, full stop.
Here we agree. We don't agree about your attribution of those 'adverse events' to the placebo.
Is that so controversial that you have to invent a caricature of me 'hyperventilating' over it, in order to protect yourself from the upsetting implications?
The world would not be more or less upsetting in the absence of deadly placebos. That would be the least of my worries, the way we're tailspinning into oblivion. That said, I do make it a habit to be critical of random stuff on the internet, just as I am of the MSM. It's bad to exchange one form of NPC'ism for another.
If you actually believe this, then I'd present it to someone like Bret Weinstein and see what he has to say about it.
"OMG THEY ARE COMMITTING MASS MURDER WITH PLACEBOS".
then I'd present it to someone like Bret Weinstein
We're talking on different levels. Bret Weinstein really hasn't said much that's useful about the pandemic at all, at least not where he hasn't trailed months behind people like Jessica Rose (and Meryl Nass, Stephanie Seneff, JC Coeuy and others), who's been consistently insightful and ahead of the curve when talking about VAERS, amyloids, poor-fidelity mRNA and countless other things on her 'random blog'. Bret's a lightning rod for ignorant attention and a punching bag for narrative-spewing types like sam harris who wait for him to screw up some basic vaxx-sceptic fact and then ritually trash him in catharsis, all the better for maintaining the orthodoxy.
Since you accept that information and theories are opaque to the average layman like you and I, you should probably read more random blogs rather than wait for information to be laundered through questionable figures like Weinstein. Otherwise you remain susceptible to the manipulation possible when social institutions start messing with the definitions of words, hoping you'll accuse those noticing of being crazy.
The world would not be more or less upsetting in the absence of deadly placebos.
But you make such sweeping statements as 'placebos don't cause myocarditis', and use that as an apparent foundation for further judgements, when a closer examination reveals that there's no such certainty in a post-2020 world. You then recoil from that closer examination, even when learned people are attempting to present it in such a way that would mean you'd no longer know nothing about it, as you accept you currently do.
Most people are upset when their accepted truths are challenged. If you were really as comfortable as you claim, not having any firm basis of definition for the things you're talking about, I suspect you wouldn't try to argue them one way or the other. Yet you do, while attempting to exaggerate and loonify the things you disagree with, in order to make doing so easier.
Bret Weinstein really hasn't said much that's useful about the pandemic at all, at least not where he hasn't trailed months behind people like Jessica Rose (and Meryl Nass, Stephanie Seneff, JC Coeuy and others),
I've never heard of these people. Do they have any actual qualifications? And if so, is there a reason to believe that they're not just run-of-the-mill cranks - because you'll find a Ph.D. to say almost anything crazy that you want.
Since you accept that information and theories are opaque to the average layman like you and I, you should probably read more random blogs rather than wait for information to be laundered through questionable figures like Weinstein.
But is there any reason to believe that those 'random blogs' provide information that is reliable? I don't see it. I accept information that I can verify myself, as much as I can at least.
Otherwise you remain susceptible to the manipulation possible when social institutions start messing with the definitions of words, hoping you'll accuse those noticing of being crazy.
I accept your claim that placebos are not supposed to cause side-effects. Indeed, that's the whole point of a placebo. However, I'm not persuaded that there are deadly placebos being used. Extraordinary claims require...
But you make such sweeping statements as 'placebos don't cause myocarditis',
I didn't. But I would. Because I am pretty sure that they do not.
You then recoil from that closer examination, even when learned people are attempting to present it in such a way that would mean you'd no longer know nothing about it, as you accept you currently do.
I'm not at all attached to 'knowing' anything. I'm fine with saying that I don't know. This was just not sufficient evidence to persuade me that I don't know.
Most people are upset when their accepted truths are challenged
And I have noticed, because I'm usually the one challenging their accepted truths.
If you were really as comfortable as you claim, not having any firm basis of definition for the things you're talking about, I suspect you wouldn't try to argue them one way or the other. Yet you do, while attempting to exaggerate and loonify the things you disagree with, in order to make doing so easier.
So when trying to judge whether something is true, you have to take into account how likely something is, and the evidence for it. If you tried to claim that Biden has ice cream for breakfast this morning, I'd be content with fairly meager evidence. If you make extraordinary claims, I'll ask for something more than just random blog post.
Now, considering that we know the establishment is corrupt, could it be that those random blog posts are the only ones pointing out the truth? It's certainly not impossible. But killer placebos would be a big lie even by their standards.
I've never heard of these people. Do they have any actual qualifications? And if so, is there a reason to believe that they're not just run-of-the-mill cranks - because you'll find a Ph.D. to say almost anything crazy that you want.
All of them are PhDs I think with the exception of Meryl Nass who nevertheless has an extensive CV and Robert Malone seems quite fond of her. I mention them in comparison to Bret Weinstein because you seem to be under the impression that Bret's a route to legitimisation of a dissident theory. Actually he's the goofy youtuber compared to people like this. Rose and Nass talk frequently to Robert Kennedy's Children's Health Defence org, which is involved in actual legal action against medical censorship and covid mandates including some wins. Rose has also been on Highwire, hosted by Del Bigtree who is the founder of another org (ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network) involved in anti-mandate lawsuits. Stephanie Seneff has co-authored a key paper with Peter McCullough. If there's a crank in the bunch it's JJ Couey, who gives off autist vibes, but he also has some of the most interesting and insightful perspectives which sooner or later everyone in the dissident circle seem to end up echoing to varying degrees. There are more than those, who I listed off the top of my head. The guests in the various videos in the last link are also kind of an overflow drawer of other covid dissident figures, almost all biologists or scientists of some stripe and probably worth listening to (apart from Marc Girardot who I think is completely full of shit, in contrast to Coeuy's opinion of him). Rounding the Earth podcast and Housatonic (bitchute) are I think where you'll find some of those guys, but I don't check those.
I like Bret more than his brother, but I'm not aware of him really doing anything of note during the pandemic other than stating the obvious (usually far too late) or getting in eceleb spats due to his elevated profile. There's a clip I can't find right now of Bret in 2019 nodding along to Sam Harris, as Sam goes off the deep end, saying that anti-vaxx sentiment is equivalent to Islamic Jihadism and completely incompatible with society. Now when I search Bret all I get is Harris vs Weinstein bullshit because Weinstein became more jab-sceptic and Harris now considers him an apostate, or else some Lex Fridman wank. It's all theatre. In searching just now I see he was recently on Rogan and Rogan had to censor his podcast archive due to discussing a fake tweet. Great.
But killer placebos would be a big lie even by their standards.
Not necessarily - they already lie about using placebos at all. ICAN's letter to the US HHS lays out how they boast about having placebo controlled studies for childhood vaccines when it's not the case (the table goes on for longer - full letter here ). Basically they consider other childhood vaccine products as so standard that they have no compunction about using them for the control group - but that does not mean the previously accepted vaccines are equivalent to placebo.
If they are nevertheless treating them as placebo, or if they are making some other arrogant assumption such as 'fukkit, a lipid nanoparticle with no mRNA is basically placebo right? plus we get data on the use of empty LNPs', and if those controls have any death signal at all, then there are your 'killer placebos' and I don't think it's a much bigger lie than they've been telling these past 2 years. A very useful one since it narrows the adverse event gap between mRNA results and placebo, which would be the whole point.
Another possibility (which J. Rose mentions in her random blog) is that the placebo is placebo and the adverse events and bad outcomes are just from the childhood vaccines babies are receiving outside the study. Damning either way.
All of them are PhDs I think with the exception of Meryl Nass who nevertheless has an extensive CV and Robert Malone seems quite fond of her.
Very well, at least they're not complete randos. But you can find 'experts' who say almost anything. Malone himself has said some questionable things himself, though I will admit that on a personal level, he is quite charismatic - and neither he nor these people should be censored on social media.
Rose and Nass talk frequently to Robert Kennedy's Children's Health Defence org, which is involved in actual legal action against medical censorship and covid mandates including some wins. Rose has also been on Highwire, hosted by Del Bigtree who is the founder of another org (ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network) involved in anti-mandate lawsuits.
If you do some good stuff as well, at least in the policy realm, that in no way guarantees that your views are valid or based on reality.
I like Bret more than his brother, but I'm not aware of him really doing anything of note during the pandemic other than stating the obvious (usually far too late)
What is obvious to you isn't nearly as obvious to the rest of humanity. About 80% of people in developed countries have taken the vaccine. So even Weinstein is in the decided minority.
Basically they consider other childhood vaccine products as so standard that they have no compunction about using them for the control group - but that does not mean the previously accepted vaccines are equivalent to placebo.
Strange if true. But while it's not a placebo, it might be a valid measuring stick for "is this new product being offered superior to what is being used today".
plus we get data on the use of empty LNPs', and if those controls have any death signal at all,
Like I said, people die as time passes. If it's so odd, then it's strange that your screenshot pointed out that the number of deaths in the vaccine group was about as high as in the placebo group, not that the placebo group had any deaths.
then there are your 'killer placebos' and I don't think it's a much bigger lie than they've been telling these past 2 years.
Regardless, "they could be lying" is always valid but not proof that they in fact are.
Another possibility (which J. Rose mentions in her random blog) is that the placebo is placebo and the adverse events and bad outcomes are just from the childhood vaccines babies are receiving outside the study. Damning either way.
I mean, there's an obvious conclusion based on the data. And it isn't "OMG THEY ARE COMMITTING MASS MURDER WITH PLACEBOS".
I don't read stuff from random blogs, but I am surprised that you do read it and then proceed to take it seriously.
Here we agree. We don't agree about your attribution of those 'adverse events' to the placebo.
The world would not be more or less upsetting in the absence of deadly placebos. That would be the least of my worries, the way we're tailspinning into oblivion. That said, I do make it a habit to be critical of random stuff on the internet, just as I am of the MSM. It's bad to exchange one form of NPC'ism for another.
If you actually believe this, then I'd present it to someone like Bret Weinstein and see what he has to say about it.
We're talking on different levels. Bret Weinstein really hasn't said much that's useful about the pandemic at all, at least not where he hasn't trailed months behind people like Jessica Rose (and Meryl Nass, Stephanie Seneff, JC Coeuy and others), who's been consistently insightful and ahead of the curve when talking about VAERS, amyloids, poor-fidelity mRNA and countless other things on her 'random blog'. Bret's a lightning rod for ignorant attention and a punching bag for narrative-spewing types like sam harris who wait for him to screw up some basic vaxx-sceptic fact and then ritually trash him in catharsis, all the better for maintaining the orthodoxy.
Since you accept that information and theories are opaque to the average layman like you and I, you should probably read more random blogs rather than wait for information to be laundered through questionable figures like Weinstein. Otherwise you remain susceptible to the manipulation possible when social institutions start messing with the definitions of words, hoping you'll accuse those noticing of being crazy.
But you make such sweeping statements as 'placebos don't cause myocarditis', and use that as an apparent foundation for further judgements, when a closer examination reveals that there's no such certainty in a post-2020 world. You then recoil from that closer examination, even when learned people are attempting to present it in such a way that would mean you'd no longer know nothing about it, as you accept you currently do.
Most people are upset when their accepted truths are challenged. If you were really as comfortable as you claim, not having any firm basis of definition for the things you're talking about, I suspect you wouldn't try to argue them one way or the other. Yet you do, while attempting to exaggerate and loonify the things you disagree with, in order to make doing so easier.
I've never heard of these people. Do they have any actual qualifications? And if so, is there a reason to believe that they're not just run-of-the-mill cranks - because you'll find a Ph.D. to say almost anything crazy that you want.
But is there any reason to believe that those 'random blogs' provide information that is reliable? I don't see it. I accept information that I can verify myself, as much as I can at least.
I accept your claim that placebos are not supposed to cause side-effects. Indeed, that's the whole point of a placebo. However, I'm not persuaded that there are deadly placebos being used. Extraordinary claims require...
I didn't. But I would. Because I am pretty sure that they do not.
I'm not at all attached to 'knowing' anything. I'm fine with saying that I don't know. This was just not sufficient evidence to persuade me that I don't know.
And I have noticed, because I'm usually the one challenging their accepted truths.
So when trying to judge whether something is true, you have to take into account how likely something is, and the evidence for it. If you tried to claim that Biden has ice cream for breakfast this morning, I'd be content with fairly meager evidence. If you make extraordinary claims, I'll ask for something more than just random blog post.
Now, considering that we know the establishment is corrupt, could it be that those random blog posts are the only ones pointing out the truth? It's certainly not impossible. But killer placebos would be a big lie even by their standards.
All of them are PhDs I think with the exception of Meryl Nass who nevertheless has an extensive CV and Robert Malone seems quite fond of her. I mention them in comparison to Bret Weinstein because you seem to be under the impression that Bret's a route to legitimisation of a dissident theory. Actually he's the goofy youtuber compared to people like this. Rose and Nass talk frequently to Robert Kennedy's Children's Health Defence org, which is involved in actual legal action against medical censorship and covid mandates including some wins. Rose has also been on Highwire, hosted by Del Bigtree who is the founder of another org (ICAN - Informed Consent Action Network) involved in anti-mandate lawsuits. Stephanie Seneff has co-authored a key paper with Peter McCullough. If there's a crank in the bunch it's JJ Couey, who gives off autist vibes, but he also has some of the most interesting and insightful perspectives which sooner or later everyone in the dissident circle seem to end up echoing to varying degrees. There are more than those, who I listed off the top of my head. The guests in the various videos in the last link are also kind of an overflow drawer of other covid dissident figures, almost all biologists or scientists of some stripe and probably worth listening to (apart from Marc Girardot who I think is completely full of shit, in contrast to Coeuy's opinion of him). Rounding the Earth podcast and Housatonic (bitchute) are I think where you'll find some of those guys, but I don't check those.
I like Bret more than his brother, but I'm not aware of him really doing anything of note during the pandemic other than stating the obvious (usually far too late) or getting in eceleb spats due to his elevated profile. There's a clip I can't find right now of Bret in 2019 nodding along to Sam Harris, as Sam goes off the deep end, saying that anti-vaxx sentiment is equivalent to Islamic Jihadism and completely incompatible with society. Now when I search Bret all I get is Harris vs Weinstein bullshit because Weinstein became more jab-sceptic and Harris now considers him an apostate, or else some Lex Fridman wank. It's all theatre. In searching just now I see he was recently on Rogan and Rogan had to censor his podcast archive due to discussing a fake tweet. Great.
Not necessarily - they already lie about using placebos at all. ICAN's letter to the US HHS lays out how they boast about having placebo controlled studies for childhood vaccines when it's not the case (the table goes on for longer - full letter here ). Basically they consider other childhood vaccine products as so standard that they have no compunction about using them for the control group - but that does not mean the previously accepted vaccines are equivalent to placebo.
If they are nevertheless treating them as placebo, or if they are making some other arrogant assumption such as 'fukkit, a lipid nanoparticle with no mRNA is basically placebo right? plus we get data on the use of empty LNPs', and if those controls have any death signal at all, then there are your 'killer placebos' and I don't think it's a much bigger lie than they've been telling these past 2 years. A very useful one since it narrows the adverse event gap between mRNA results and placebo, which would be the whole point.
Another possibility (which J. Rose mentions in her random blog) is that the placebo is placebo and the adverse events and bad outcomes are just from the childhood vaccines babies are receiving outside the study. Damning either way.
Very well, at least they're not complete randos. But you can find 'experts' who say almost anything. Malone himself has said some questionable things himself, though I will admit that on a personal level, he is quite charismatic - and neither he nor these people should be censored on social media.
If you do some good stuff as well, at least in the policy realm, that in no way guarantees that your views are valid or based on reality.
What is obvious to you isn't nearly as obvious to the rest of humanity. About 80% of people in developed countries have taken the vaccine. So even Weinstein is in the decided minority.
Strange if true. But while it's not a placebo, it might be a valid measuring stick for "is this new product being offered superior to what is being used today".
Like I said, people die as time passes. If it's so odd, then it's strange that your screenshot pointed out that the number of deaths in the vaccine group was about as high as in the placebo group, not that the placebo group had any deaths.
Regardless, "they could be lying" is always valid but not proof that they in fact are.
Sounds like they are really fond of vaccines.