Theo Brixton

I can't believe we are almost on page 3 of this thread and no one mentioned covid origins. Literally the most retarded attempt by the establishment to say "the science is settled" during the whole covid debacle. When you mix science with politics you get politics. This is readily apparent in all things covid-related and no doubt many other fields with political implications. "Follow the science" always meant "don't question the establishment narrative". And as we've found with covid, the "experts" got just about every single thing wrong that they tried to censor which, of course, is why they tried to censor it in the first place.

The same confounding concepts in vaccinated vs. boosted are found in the unvaccinated vs. vaccinated and are very likely to be more dramatic in the latter comparison-the healthy vaccinee bias. The authors' response to the NEJM critique clearly explains one of many possibilities for why this may be. This concept is pervasive in vaccine research and is an important reason why the 8x claim should be met with immediate skepticism. The second article is simply adding up all of the deaths from a handful of clinical trials, not sure what you expect peer-review to change. In general, the idea that peer-review is what stands between legitimacy and fraud is quaint, especially for politically-charged science.

Apparently this can be amended and extended...

You obviously didn't read the link because the author of the blog is the senior author of the peer-reviewed paper in question. But you do you. And other reputable people have recognized the sleight of hand employed to claim the virus causes more myocarditis than the vaccine with relevance to young men--which is the only meaningful cohort when talking about vaccine-induced myocarditis. And again, credentialed people are questioning claims related to differences in mortality between the vaccinated and unvaccinated: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2306683. It can be highly misleading to attribute causality to highly confounded data (any data used to claim differences between vaccinated/unvaccinated outside of a clinical trial potentially fall into this category) which is why randomized, double-blind clinical trials are the gold standard. And while the mRNA vaccine clinical trials were not powered to look at survival benefits, pooled analysis of the Pfizer and Moderna trials show no evidence of such a benefit: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4072489. Any benefit observed in reducing Covid mortality were offset, coincidentally, by an increase in cardiovascular deaths in the vaccine group. As far as I am aware, we do not know whether Bronny James did or did not have myocarditis. We know he suffered from cardiac arrest. Myocarditis can increase the risk of cardiac arrest, regardless of whether it's fulminant. In the absence of information, people will speculate. Maybe the USC team is on the Len Bias diet? I really could not care less because it has no bearing whatsoever on the fact young people (or anyone for that matter) should not have been forced to take this particular vaccine. Sad, but not surprising, that MAGAs have a better grasp on the ethics and logic of this than the people that like to look down upon them.

These are bullshit stats, just an FYI. Issues surrounding myocarditis from vaccination are for men under 40 receiving the mRNA vaccine and it typically occurs after the second (or booster? LOL) shot. Men of this age are at no risk from virus-induced myocarditis or any other long-term sequelae. Any study claiming that virus-induced myocarditis is greater than vaccine-induced is grouping all ages and sexes together in a way to diminish the obvious signal that occurs with young men. There are lies, damn lies and Covid statistics and it seems like you didn't take the time to look into the information you are citing. Here is a layman's explanation with a link to the original study: https://sensiblemed.substack.com/p/our-new-analysis-of-myocarditis-after Mandating a vaccine to a cohort where there is a known (albeit small?) risk while the benefit is unknown, and likely small, is unethical. And the death rate is 8x higher? Come on, even the MAGAs can see through this obviously false statistic. Any report claiming that the death-rate is 8x higher is using hopelessly confounded data. The two groups being compared are obviously not equivalent and these types of studies are dismissed out of hand by honest, serious people. There is no evidence of a reduction in all-cause mortality when you pool the data for mRNA vaccine clinical studies, but there is for the viral-based vaccines. So did Bronny's heart issues stem from vaccination? Who knows? It would be difficult to know without an invasive work-up. But I can tell you one thing, if I were an administrator at USC responsible for their Covid vaccination policy, I wouldn't want to be taking a call from LeBron right about now...

He looks like he's a really good athlete. Far more agile than his father. His mother was apparently an accomplished track athlete in college. MM didn't look that big for the weight but still dominated. Curious how he would have done against Ross. If Mocco continues to grow and fill out, he's going to be a monster heavyweight.

Funny to see people looking down their nose at MAGAs for being gullible peckerwoods manipulated by Trump. That those same folks credulously parrot MSM talking points about the existential threat that is Trump is the ultimate irony.

Maybe Shute can be transgendered.

If you would like to do your part to see some of the bad actors in all of this have their comeuppance, you can sign this petition to have the paper behind much of the controversy retracted: https://www.change.org/p/retract-the-proximal-origin-of-sars-cov-2 To have a paper retracted, especially one of this magnitude, is one of the more disgraceful things that can happen to a scientist and may lay the groundwork for more serious consequences for those involved.

I didn't need to get a visa beforehand when I went to Nur Sultan in 2019. Added bonus: the women there are pretty easy on the eyes. VERY NICE!!! And if this complicates travel for our European counterparts, I'd just refer them to the immortal words of Victoria Nuland...

I hope not...

You could make the same meme about themat vs. intermat's forums.

Other than the person who performed the reckless experiments in Wuhan, Fauci is singlehandedly most responsible for the pandemic. As head of the NIAID, he was a proponent of gain-of-function research (matter of public record). Without his seal of approval, this type of work would not have proliferated. There are countless Chinese scientists short on ideas and blinded by ambition and gain-of-function research is like scientific crack to them: conceptually simple, technically easy to carry out and results in high-impact publications that are the currency of scientific research. Of course Fauci was obfuscating the origin of the virus. You had to be retarded to not see that, if you were looking. And this was essentially known from the beginning even without the new bombshell releases.

Strange puff piece. I should probably be thankful the full video isn't available because I couldn't stomach much more than the three minutes given here.

OK, the information I received from USAW confirms that the tickets are $70/session but are general admission with no assigned seat. Seems kind of weird to have an event like this and not have assigned seating.