If the Truth Was on Their Side, They Wouldn’t Have to Lie

 

I came across this article yesterday on a website I’ve never heard of: “Covid jab magnetic reactions???” Heck, the article is so short, I’ll quote the entire text:

THIS IS CONFIRMED. OTHER PEOPLE WHO GOT THE COVID JAB ARE CONFIRMING THIS HAPPENS. UPDATE: YOU CANNOT GET AN MRI FOR 6-10 WEEKS AFTER THE SHOT BECAUSE OF THIS, (SCROLL DOWN)

The Pfizer jab does indeed make a magnet stick to people’s arms where they got the shot. This woman does not specify how long after, but you’ll need a neodymium magnet for this to show.

I have now confirmed the shot probably contains nanobots, because you are supposed to wait 6 – 10 WEEKS after the shot before you get a MRI most likely because the nanobots have to disperse or the MRI will rip your arm apart.

Then they show this screenshot, apparently from a video:

I thought to myself, “Hey, I got the Pfizer vaccine!  Let’s see if it works on me.”  And sure enough, it did:

Except that there are a couple of differences.  I got the vaccine in December.  I thought the “nanobots” should be long dispersed by now.  Oh, and that’s not a magnet. It’s a penny, made of copper and zinc, with no magnetic properties. This is a parlor trick, known by just about every amateur magician.

The hard-hitting, in-depth urinalism continues with:

That’s a strong attraction. How’s that going to work in an MRI???

WHOAH!!! I GOT THE ANSWER: YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO GET AN MRI WHERE THE SHOT WAS FOR 6 – 10 WEEKS AFTER THE SHOT!!!

This is supposedly from the MD Anderson Cancer Center. Note that they cut off the URL so that it would be hard to look it up yourself. They also cut off the text to insert their own idiotic ranting nuanced interpretation.  I will point out two things:

  1.  Nowhere in the truncated text from MD Anderson are “nanobots” or metal mentioned.
  2.  If you being scanned by an MRI, there should be no ferrous metal anywhere in or on your body. It doesn’t matter what body part is being scanned.

Now I’m sure the raving loon highly trained but anonymous medical expert who wrote this is right and the ONLY ANSWER is nanobots. Still, I’m not entirely convinced. I know! Let’s check with MD Anderson Cancer Center! They’ll be sure to have the right answer.

After exhaustive research (five minutes on the MD Anderson website), I came across the original advisory. Here it is in its entirety:

Is it safe to get a diagnostic imaging exam, like an MRI or CT scan, after you get a COVID-19 vaccine?

If you need a diagnostic imaging exam that includes your axillary lymph nodes, talk to your doctor to see if it is medically appropriate to delay the exam for 6 to 10 weeks after your COVID-19 vaccination. Your body’s immune response to the vaccine may cause temporary inflammation of your axillary lymph nodes and interfere with your imaging exam.

Oh, my. If you can’t trust a website called Beforeitsnews.com, who can you trust?

Thanks to @Flicker for turning me on to this.

Published in Humor
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 29 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Judge Mental Member
    Judge Mental
    @JudgeMental

    The truth?  You can’t handle the truth.

    • #1
  2. Barfly Member
    Barfly
    @Barfly

    Ok, yeah, lots of crackpots make up lots of stuff. We’ve even got some crackpots here that post the most … questionable things.

    But what I’m wondering is, which side are they supposed to be on?

    • #2
  3. JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery Thatcher
    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery
    @JosePluma

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Ok, yeah, lots of crackpots make up lots of stuff. We’ve even got some crackpots here that post the most … questionable things.

    But what I’m wondering is, which side are they supposed to be on?

    I’m not a big joiner, so I don’t care about sides.  I just sit on the sidelines, point and laugh.

    • #3
  4. E. Kent Golding Member
    E. Kent Golding
    @EKentGolding

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Ok, yeah, lots of crackpots make up lots of stuff. We’ve even got some crackpots here that post the most … questionable things.

    But what I’m wondering is, which side are they supposed to be on?

    True Dat.

    • #4
  5. TheRightNurse Member
    TheRightNurse
    @TheRightNurse

    Yeah.  So people misinterpreted “interfere” with “medical tests” as “magnetic” and “MRI”.

    Turns out, the lymph node thing is true.  I have personally experienced this.  Your lymph nodes on that side can enlarge quite a bit and if your radiologist is not ready for it, you may end up with a scare and an unnecessary biopsy for something that is a normal inflammatory reaction (not cancer).

    Also, if you’re not supposed to have a MRI, I guess I’m still waiting to explode or have my arm ripped off or whatever: I had one about 4 weeks after my second shot.  With contrast, too!

     

    • #5
  6. JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery Thatcher
    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery
    @JosePluma

    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery (View Comment):

    Barfly (View Comment):

    Ok, yeah, lots of crackpots make up lots of stuff. We’ve even got some crackpots here that post the most … questionable things.

    But what I’m wondering is, which side are they supposed to be on?

    I’m not a big joiner, so I don’t care about sides.  I just sit on the sidelines, point and laugh.

    And there’s a lot to point and laugh at on both sides.

    • #6
  7. DonG (2+2=5. Say it!) Coolidge
    DonG (2+2=5. Say it!)
    @DonG

    I have seen people put coins in their noses.  Very mysterious.

    • #7
  8. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Oh little girl, magnetic reaction.

    • #8
  9. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    • #9
  10. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Well if there aren’t nanobots, then what is killing COVID?  Hmmmmm?

    • #10
  11. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Tin foil hats are a crock.  I use a colander.  It stops the erudium-329 emissions from outer space every time.

    • #11
  12. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Tin foil hats are a crock. I use a colander. It stops the erudium-329 emissions from outer space every time.

    Only if an individual never watches old sci fi movies and TV re-runs!

    • #12
  13. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Tin foil hats are a crock. I use a colander. It stops the erudium-329 emissions from outer space every time.

    I read that tinfoil hats are counterproductive; they actually serve to focus the spy rays on the brain.

    • #13
  14. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Tin foil hats are a crock. I use a colander. It stops the erudium-329 emissions from outer space every time.

    I read that tinfoil hats are counterproductive; they actually serve to focus the spy rays on the brain.

    Exactly.  And colanders let them out.  It’s all very scientific.

    • #14
  15. She Reagan
    She
    @She

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Tin foil hats are a crock. I use a colander. It stops the erudium-329 emissions from outer space every time.

    I read that tinfoil hats are counterproductive; they actually serve to focus the spy rays on the brain.

    Exactly. And colanders let them out. It’s all very scientific.

    It’s worked for her. This was almost 12 years ago and she’s still doing fine. 

    • #15
  16. Kozak Member
    Kozak
    @Kozak

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Tin foil hats are a crock. I use a colander. It stops the erudium-329 emissions from outer space every time.

    Max Protection.

    • #16
  17. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Max Protection.

    Wait . . . isn’t that from the CDC’s web site?

    • #17
  18. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Tin foil hats are a crock. I use a colander. It stops the erudium-329 emissions from outer space every time.

    I read that tinfoil hats are counterproductive; they actually serve to focus the spy rays on the brain.

    Do we even have tin foil anymore? Isn’t it all aluminum?

    • #18
  19. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    Randy Webster (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    Kozak (View Comment):

    Tin foil hats are a crock. I use a colander. It stops the erudium-329 emissions from outer space every time.

    I read that tinfoil hats are counterproductive; they actually serve to focus the spy rays on the brain.

    Do we even have tin foil anymore? Isn’t it all aluminum?

    You mean there’s no tin in tin foil?

    • #19
  20. Unsk Member
    Unsk
    @Unsk

    The truth about vaccines and COVID is very difficult to determine. We  clearly don’t know the truth about either.  Some say the new vaccines is safe. Some say they are  a radical rDNA gene therapy that will have serious unforeseen health consequences.  Some say there is a problem with blot clots. Some say these vaccines  causes problems eradicating the good bacteria in the lungs and will lead to long term destruction of the lung immune system.

    Because the CDC and NIH have clearly lied to us about COVID and because the media and Big Tech have clearly suppressed any information that casts  the official narrative in a negative light, getting to the real truth is almost impossible at this point.

    On May 13th, Tucker Carlson had on his show  Dr Peter McCollough , a renown cardiologist that got pulled into COVID treatment  in his practice, did research worldwide and produced a paper on the treatment on COVID  which is still the most downloaded paper on COVID treatment  in the US.  His treatment favors a multi-step, multi-drug therapy( including HCQ)  in dealing with the disease, and is an approach that mirrors the multi-step, multi-drug approach taken by the medical community treating other serious diseases like AIDS etc.

    He then put out a YouTube video on his Sequenced Multi-Drug Therapy for COVID. It lasted only a few days before it was pulled.

    He has since become very alarmed on how almost all information on treating COVID  has been suppressed in the media.

    Dr McCollough supports the COVID vaccines but he says we should have a multi-prong approach that starts with prevention, but has a strong focus on treatment of the disease , along with Vaccines. His point of view is that we put all our eggs in the basket of just vaccines which is in his estimation a very risky approach.

    • #20
  21. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Unsk (View Comment):

    The truth about vaccines and COVID is very difficult to determine.

    Amen.

    Amen.

    Amen.

    . . .

    Dr McCollough supports the COVID vaccines but he says we should have a multi-prong approach that starts with prevention, but has a strong focus on treatment of the disease , along with Vaccines. His point of view is that we put all our eggs in the basket of just vaccines which is in his estimation a very risky approach.

    I saw an interview of him on Rumble. He did say the vaccines were effective, and never said they are causing deaths.  But he did say there are a lot of deaths reported on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, on the order of 2600, and that the FDA normally pulls a product if it gets around 50 associated deaths.

    His interpretation, I believe, is that the political narrative of the day is “Yay Vaccines!” and that any contrary information is being swept under the rug.

    Looks to me like he’s right.

    I’m rooting for these new vaccines, but 2600 deaths deserve a lot of public and well-explained information. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if these were mostly frail folk who–alas!–would probably have died anyway, from covid or whatever else.  That speaks well for the vaccines.

    But I don’t know.  I don’t know how to know.  Even the greatest research doctor in Texas, Dr. McCullough, does not seem to know.

    • #21
  22. JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery Thatcher
    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery
    @JosePluma

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):

    The truth about vaccines and COVID is very difficult to determine.

    Amen.

    Amen.

    Amen.

    . . .

    Dr McCollough supports the COVID vaccines but he says we should have a multi-prong approach that starts with prevention, but has a strong focus on treatment of the disease , along with Vaccines. His point of view is that we put all our eggs in the basket of just vaccines which is in his estimation a very risky approach.

    I saw an interview of him on Rumble. He did say the vaccines were effective, and never said they are causing deaths. But he did say there are a lot of deaths reported on the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, on the order of 2600, and that the FDA normally pulls a product if it gets around 50 associated deaths.

    His interpretation, I believe, is that the political narrative of the day is “Yay Vaccines!” and that any contrary information is being swept under the rug.

    Looks to me like he’s right.

    I’m rooting for these new vaccines, but 2600 deaths deserve a lot of public and well-explained information. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if these were mostly frail folk who–alas!–would probably have died anyway, from covid or whatever else. That speaks well for the vaccines.

    But I don’t know. I don’t know how to know. Even the greatest research doctor in Texas, Dr. McCullough, does not seem to know.

    I don’t know where the “50 associated deaths” comes from, but they suspended the J&J vaccine after only one death.

    People misunderstand the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.  Pretty much every adverse medical event after a vaccine is reported.  These are then investigated to determine if there is a possibility the vaccine caused them.  That’s why the J&J vaccine was suspended:  The investigation revealed that a very rare blood clotting disorder occurred in a handful of people after that vaccine.  That’s not “being swept under the rug.”

    Now think about the people, after healthcare workers, who were the first to get the vaccine.  They were people “at risk” due to underlying health conditions and extreme age.  If you take a group of several million people over 70 years old who are obese, or have heart disease, or kidney disease, or COPD, or diabetes, seeing 2600 die over a few months is not remarkable.

    The CDC has done an incredibly poor job, but the anti-vaxxers are outright lying.

    As for Dr. McCullough, he seems not to understand the VAERS.  He notes the number without any of the context.  Does he point out any specific case, or unusual pattern of morbidity/mortality that arouses concern?   If he is the “greatest research doctor in Texas,” I would think he would know how to do the followup.

    I also agree that treatment is important; Prevention is much more important.  See my previous post, There’s A Treatment For That!

     

    • #22
  23. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery (View Comment):

    I don’t know where the “50 associated deaths” comes from, but they suspended the J&J vaccine after only one death.

    He said it’s the typical approach the FDA had taken to a new product in the past. That’s all I know.

    People misunderstand the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System.  Pretty much every adverse medical event after a vaccine is reported.  These are then investigated to determine if there is a possibility the vaccine caused them.  That’s why the J&J vaccine was suspended:  The investigation revealed that a very rare blood clotting disorder occurred in a handful of people after that vaccine.  That’s not “being swept under the rug.”

    So does this rebuttal to McC seem good to you?

    https://ricochet.com/880442/pit-21-barely-legal-2/comment-page-903/#comment-5467628

    . . . They were people “at risk” due to underlying health conditions and extreme age.  If you take a group of several million people over 70 years old who are obese, or have heart disease, or kidney disease, or COPD, or diabetes, seeing 2600 die over a few months is not remarkable.

    Yeah, I’ve wondered myself if that was likely. (Dr. McC didn’t say in that video that the vaccines had caused any deaths.)

    The CDC has done an incredibly poor job, but the anti-vaxxers are outright lying.

    As for Dr. McCullough, he seems not to understand the VAERS.  He notes the number without any of the context.  Does he point out any specific case, or unusual pattern of morbidity/mortality that arouses concern?

    Only that we have a pretty high number of deaths for this number of vaccinations. He doesn’t make a causality claim. He does say the CDC had claimed to look at 1600 of them and said there was no causality, and objected that they couldn’t have done a good job with that in the time they’d had available.

    That’s all I know.

    If he is the “greatest research doctor in Texas,” I would think he would know how to do the followup.

    Well, maybe he’s not that good! An employer-based website seemed to talk him up about that high.

    • #23
  24. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Unsk (View Comment):

    The truth about vaccines and COVID is very difficult to determine. We clearly don’t know the truth about either. Some say the new vaccines is safe. Some say they are a radical rDNA gene therapy that will have serious unforeseen health consequences. Some say there is a problem with blot clots. Some say these vaccines causes problems eradicating the good bacteria in the lungs and will lead to long term destruction of the lung immune system.

    Because the CDC and NIH have clearly lied to us about COVID and because the media and Big Tech have clearly suppressed any information that casts the official narrative in a negative light, getting to the real truth is almost impossible at this point.

    On May 13th, Tucker Carlson had on his show Dr Peter McCollough , a renown cardiologist that got pulled into COVID treatment in his practice, did research worldwide and produced a paper on the treatment on COVID which is still the most downloaded paper on COVID treatment in the US. His treatment favors a multi-step, multi-drug therapy( including HCQ) in dealing with the disease, and is an approach that mirrors the multi-step, multi-drug approach taken by the medical community treating other serious diseases like AIDS etc.

    He then put out a YouTube video on his Sequenced Multi-Drug Therapy for COVID. It lasted only a few days before it was pulled.

    He has since become very alarmed on how almost all information on treating COVID has been suppressed in the media.

    Dr McCollough supports the COVID vaccines but he says we should have a multi-prong approach that starts with prevention, but has a strong focus on treatment of the disease , along with Vaccines. His point of view is that we put all our eggs in the basket of just vaccines which is in his estimation a very risky approach.

    Did you catch my satirical piece a few months back about Fauci and vaccines? In it, Dr Fauci announced that from now on, when anyone  who has been lost in the desert and is totally de-hydrated is being rescued,  the Gold Standard of treatment will no longer be to give the person some sips of water and a therapeutic aid like Gatorade, but to wait til Big Pharma has developed a vaccine for de-hydration.

    If 450,000 people die while awaiting that vax for de-hydration, it still will have been worth it. Because after all, stockholders in Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson and Johnson stocks  are people too.

    • #24
  25. JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery Thatcher
    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery
    @JosePluma

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    So does this rebuttal to McC seem good to you?

    https://ricochet.com/880442/pit-21-barely-legal-2/comment-page-903/#comment-5467628

    Since it’s basically what I’ve been saying, yes, it’s a brilliant response.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Only that we have a pretty high number of deaths for this number of vaccinations. He doesn’t make a causality claim. He does say the CDC had claimed to look at 1600 of them and said there was no causality, and objected that they couldn’t have done a good job with that in the time they’d had available.

    How do we know it’s a “pretty high number of deaths?”  Has anyone look at similar sized group of people with the same age and health profile and seen how many have died?  If we don’t know what that number is, the 2600 number has no meaning.

    Let’s say that the 2600 deaths were after 10 million people got the vaccine.  (I’m just making up numbers here.) If you examined a controlled cohort of 10 million people from, say, 2018 who were over 70 years old and had at least one comorbidity and found that 5200 had died in a five-month period, that would indicate (not prove) that the people getting the vaccine were less likely to die.  If the control group had around 2600 deaths, that would indicate (not prove) that the vaccine had no effect on mortality.  If the control group had 1300 deaths, that would indicate (not prove) that the vaccine may be causing excessive deaths.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):
    Well, maybe he’s not that good! An employer-based website seemed to talk him up about that high.

    I’d be the last person to impugn someone’s credentials, since I’m just a lowly nurse and not a paid researcher.  Still, the fine doctor seems to have credentials as a cardiologist.  He may be the best cardiology researcher in the world, but that does not say anything about his ability in virology or epidemiology.

    • #25
  26. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    So does this rebuttal to McC seem good to you?

    https://ricochet.com/880442/pit-21-barely-legal-2/comment-page-903/#comment-5467628

    Since it’s basically what I’ve been saying, yes, it’s a brilliant response.

    Good.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Only that we have a pretty high number of deaths for this number of vaccinations. He doesn’t make a causality claim. He does say the CDC had claimed to look at 1600 of them and said there was no causality, and objected that they couldn’t have done a good job with that in the time they’d had available.

    How do we know it’s a “pretty high number of deaths?” Has anyone look at similar sized group of people with the same age and health profile and seen how many have died? If we don’t know what that number is, the 2600 number has no meaning.

    Let’s say that the 2600 deaths were after 10 million people got the vaccine. (I’m just making up numbers here.) If you examined a controlled cohort of 10 million people from, say, 2018 who were over 70 years old and had at least one comorbidity and found that 5200 had died in a five-month period, that would indicate (not prove) that the people getting the vaccine were less likely to die. If the control group had around 2600 deaths, that would indicate (not prove) that the vaccine had no effect on mortality. If the control group had 1300 deaths, that would indicate (not prove) that the vaccine is causing excessive deaths.

    I don’t know nothing. McC’s only premises in the video were, I believe, that in the past the FDA has typically pulled a product at around 50 associated deaths, including an example from some earlier vaccine decades ago; and, for more context, recent numbers of flu vaccines with 20ish associated deaths at a much higher vaccination rate. So I guess he thinks it’s pretty high relative to where the FDA normally pulls a product, and relative to current flu vaccines.

    Not necessarily relative to anything else, although of course its size relative to these other things is most important.

    • #26
  27. JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery Thatcher
    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery
    @JosePluma

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):

    The truth about vaccines and COVID is very difficult to determine. We clearly don’t know the truth about either. Some say the new vaccines is safe. Some say they are a radical rDNA gene therapy that will have serious unforeseen health consequences. Some say there is a problem with blot clots. Some say these vaccines causes problems eradicating the good bacteria in the lungs and will lead to long term destruction of the lung immune system.

    Because the CDC and NIH have clearly lied to us about COVID and because the media and Big Tech have clearly suppressed any information that casts the official narrative in a negative light, getting to the real truth is almost impossible at this point.

    On May 13th, Tucker Carlson had on his show Dr Peter McCollough , a renown cardiologist that got pulled into COVID treatment in his practice, did research worldwide and produced a paper on the treatment on COVID which is still the most downloaded paper on COVID treatment in the US. His treatment favors a multi-step, multi-drug therapy( including HCQ) in dealing with the disease, and is an approach that mirrors the multi-step, multi-drug approach taken by the medical community treating other serious diseases like AIDS etc.

    He then put out a YouTube video on his Sequenced Multi-Drug Therapy for COVID. It lasted only a few days before it was pulled.

    He has since become very alarmed on how almost all information on treating COVID has been suppressed in the media.

    Dr McCollough supports the COVID vaccines but he says we should have a multi-prong approach that starts with prevention, but has a strong focus on treatment of the disease , along with Vaccines. His point of view is that we put all our eggs in the basket of just vaccines which is in his estimation a very risky approach.

    Did you catch my satirical piece a few months back about Fauci and vaccines? In it, Dr Fauci announced that from now on, when anyone who has been lost in the desert and is totally de-hydrated is being rescued, the Gold Standard of treatment will no longer be to give the person some sips of water and a therapeutic aid like Gatorade, but to wait til Big Pharma has developed a vaccine for de-hydration.

    If 450,000 people die while awaiting that vax for de-hydration, it still will have been worth it. Because after all, stockholders in Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson and Johnson stocks are people too.

    Actually, I came across a much better analogy in an announcement from the US Parks Service:

    Flagstaff Banner, May 10, 2021

    WATER BOTTLES BANNED FROM THE GRAND CANYON

    In a surprise announcement, the US Parks Service announced that water bottles will no longer be allowed into the wilderness interior of the Grand Canyon National Park.  Chief Park Ranger Rahat Nevăstuică stated that the pollution from discarded water containers has become unacceptable.  “Besides,” stated Ranger Nevăstuică, “the big businesses that produce these things are making millions on plain water.  There are free water stations every five miles or so along most of the trails in the Canyon.”  When asked about the possibility of hikers and campers becoming dehydrated, Ranger Nevăstuică said, “There are treatments for dehydration.  It’s just a quick helicopter flight to Flagstaff Memorial and a couple of days of IV fluids.  Assuming we find you in time.”

    As you can see, this does a better job of satirizing the opposing position than your example. First, dehydration is not a disease and therefore can not be prevented by a vaccine. I substituted an actual preventative for dehydration, carrying water. Second, the sainted Dr. Fauci has not come out against all treatments, just those he claims, rightly or wrongly, to be ineffective. My little vignette does a better job of skewering anti-vaxxers, who seem to have the ridiculous idea that preventative measures are unnecessary if there are treatments for the results of of not taking those measures.

    • #27
  28. JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery Thatcher
    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery
    @JosePluma

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery (View Comment):

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    So does this rebuttal to McC seem good to you?

    https://ricochet.com/880442/pit-21-barely-legal-2/comment-page-903/#comment-5467628

    Since it’s basically what I’ve been saying, yes, it’s a brilliant response.

    Good.

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Only that we have a pretty high number of deaths for this number of vaccinations. He doesn’t make a causality claim. He does say the CDC had claimed to look at 1600 of them and said there was no causality, and objected that they couldn’t have done a good job with that in the time they’d had available.

    How do we know it’s a “pretty high number of deaths?” Has anyone look at similar sized group of people with the same age and health profile and seen how many have died? If we don’t know what that number is, the 2600 number has no meaning.

    Let’s say that the 2600 deaths were after 10 million people got the vaccine. (I’m just making up numbers here.) If you examined a controlled cohort of 10 million people from, say, 2018 who were over 70 years old and had at least one comorbidity and found that 5200 had died in a five-month period, that would indicate (not prove) that the people getting the vaccine were less likely to die. If the control group had around 2600 deaths, that would indicate (not prove) that the vaccine had no effect on mortality. If the control group had 1300 deaths, that would indicate (not prove) that the vaccine is causing excessive deaths.

    I don’t know nothing. McC’s only premises in the video were, I believe, that in the past the FDA has typically pulled a product at around 50 associated deaths, including an example from some earlier vaccine decades ago; and, for more context, recent numbers of flu vaccines with 20ish associated deaths at a much higher vaccination rate. So I guess he thinks it’s pretty high relative to where the FDA normally pulls a product, and relative to current flu vaccines.

    Not necessarily relative to anything else, although of course its size relative to these other things is most important.

    I’ll begin with a quote I picked up somewhere:

    There’s no 50-deaths rule; there’s just people looking at the circumstances and trying to make useful decisions; if in the past this tended towards canceling a new product after 50 deaths, that wasn’t because of a rule or even a typical approach; it’s just because the decisions happened to turn out that way sometimes.

    Let’s say you are looking at a group of people and discover that, after taking the vaccine, some patients suffering from heart disease had fatal heart attacks; some with COPD died of respiratory failure; some who had BMI’s above 30 had pulmonary embolisms; and a few of those with kidney disease died of kidney failure.  That would be a series of unremarkable occurrences, especially if most of the patients were over 70.  However, if several patients with no previous history of kidney disease suddenly died of kidney failure, that would be a red flag.

    Basically, that’s what happened with the J&J vaccine, except it was blood problem instead of kidney disease. And in that instance, the tipping point was not 50 or even 20 deaths.  It was one death and a handful of hospitalizations.

    • #28
  29. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    JosePluma, Local Man of Mystery (View Comment):

    I’ll begin with a quote I picked up somewhere:

    There’s no 50-deaths rule; there’s just people looking at the circumstances and trying to make useful decisions; if in the past this tended towards canceling a new product after 50 deaths, that wasn’t because of a rule or even a typical approach; it’s just because the decisions happened to turn out that way sometimes.

    Let’s say you are looking at a group of people and discover that, after taking the vaccine, some patients suffering from heart disease had fatal heart attacks; some with COPD died of respiratory failure; some who had BMI’s above 30 had pulmonary embolisms; and a few of those with kidney disease died of kidney failure. That would be a series of unremarkable occurrences, especially if most of the patients were over 70. However, if several patients with no previous history of kidney disease suddenly died of kidney failure, that would be a red flag.

    Basically, that’s what happened with the J&J vaccine, except it was blood problem instead of kidney disease. And in that instance, the tipping point was not 50 or even 20 deaths. It was one death and a handful of hospitalizations.

    I don’t know what to say to that other than “Thanks!” for supporting a good rebuttal of Dr. McC’s critiques, and . . .

    DIE, CORONAVIRUS! DIE, YOU SPIKY LITTLE DASTARD!  WARP NINE!

    Warp Speed GIFs - Get the best GIF on GIPHY

    • #29