recogitare.com

Trying to estimate the # of deaths the vaccine prevented is some seriously lame science. The lack of scrutiny therein shows a charming bias toward wanting the virus to work. It's also quite easy to show that it didn't work; wasn't worth the hassle, etc. Admitting a failure is painful to part of the agenda...the monetary aspect...though, to the science side, failed experiments provide valuable data. Beautiful method. Peer review is also a sweet tool of the process. In the covid case, as mentioned, there was science that was censored to the benefit of the vaccine's sales and future booster sales. There was a loss of objectivity in the method, and the flaw has been expounded on in the meantime, as to make it factual.

The sales pitch continues. We still haven't addressed the obvious value of lifestyle and immune system health...as an option to the vaccine. Natural immunity's advantages are still ignored in the equation. Those outcomes are preferable to the vaccine, if you're reasonably fit. Yet, the cdc is sticking with its recommendations...everyone over 6 months of age should get the shots. That's not science. It's sales pitch.

If it turns out that we created the virus in a rather shady way, and got sloppy with it, one can imagine how that looks.
As Arth implies, we're past that now. Lab leak is old news.

Who needs conspiracy when reality gives us toxic water? Humans blunder along, poisoning stuff. Then they try again. Lead pipes replaced with plastic ones, and filters. Yummy H2O. It's a routine. First, deny the damage; drag out law suits; pay a token fine; let whistle blower out of jail; find replacement for quicksilver. Start over. Fiberglass instead of asbestos around the furnace; maybe graphene later. A wonder material that could do everything. Probably put asbestos to shame.

The bias is toward the new and sciency and it gets us in the subjective spot. We cheer for some clunkers.

stanky wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:24 pm Trying to estimate the # of deaths the vaccine prevented is some seriously lame science.

We weren't discussing how many lives vaccines saved, so it's nice of you to hop back on your hobby horse.

stanky wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:24 pmThe lack of scrutiny therein shows a charming bias toward wanting the virus to work. It's also quite easy to show that it didn't work; wasn't worth the hassle, etc.

So easy to show that you don't bother showing the evidence.

Your name isn't Baldrick is it? https://blackadderquotes.com/i-have-a-cunning-plan

stanky wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:24 pmNatural immunity's advantages are still ignored in the equation.

Have you taken up naturopathy as well?

stanky wrote: ↑Tue Jan 16, 2024 6:24 pmWho needs conspiracy when reality gives us toxic water? Humans blunder along, poisoning stuff. Then they try again. Lead pipes replaced with plastic ones, and filters. Yummy H2O. It's a routine. First, deny the damage; drag out law suits; pay a token fine; let whistle blower out of jail; find replacement for quicksilver. Start over. Fiberglass instead of asbestos around the furnace; maybe graphene later. A wonder material that could do everything. Probably put asbestos to shame.

I'm disappointed you didn't mention fluoride.

I should have. Fluoridating public drinking water is a bold move. It's amazing we went along. It's one thing to have it in the toothpaste but another to force it on everyone. Drinking fluorides has no benefit to health. Yet, it's been imposed. To prevent tooth decay.
Why mention that a good diet will also prevent tooth decay? That won't sell the products that cause the tooth decay, which are seen on tv show's commercial break...same place we learn about the tin-florine miracle goo for your teeth. Cool. Buy it for the teeth, as one wants. But in the water supply!? Isn't that bit "heavy handed"?
The science for it should be pretty damn solid. It isn't. What is solid, is the by-product market of industry. It behooves them to sell their waste, if they can, rather then pay to discard it. Fluorides in water emerged from that instinct, as i recall. We invented the need for it.
Decent analogy though. Thanks, TA.

stanky wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:37 amDrinking fluorides has no benefit to health.

That's not true.

Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley VN. Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. J Dent Res. 2007;86(5):410–414.

CDC disagrees with you stank.

https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/basics/index.htm

Same here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6195894/

On the other hand:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/m ... ing-water/

https://www.myscience.org/en/news/2024/ ... 3477a50bb8

Since it doesn't appear to harm, I'd rather go for it myself. But to each his own.

arthwollipot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 3:14 am

stanky wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:37 amDrinking fluorides has no benefit to health.

That's not true.

Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley VN. Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. J Dent Res. 2007;86(5):410–414.

I said "drinking", not brushing teeth. It's in most toothpaste, if people want it. Putting it in the water, as mentioned, is a bit heavy-handed.

sparks wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 4:08 am CDC disagrees with you stank.

https://www.cdc.gov/fluoridation/basics/index.htm

Same here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6195894/

On the other hand:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/m ... ing-water/

https://www.myscience.org/en/news/2024/ ... 3477a50bb8

Since it doesn't appear to harm, I'd rather go for it myself. But to each his own.

i only looked at the first link (so far) and i must say, "What a load of crap."

Cut to the chase there, and see that the controversial fluoridating of municipal water, according to their stats, lowers tooth cavities by 25%.
25%!!
should anyone be impressed with that number?

Know what might do better? Stop the sugar subsidies. Let the culprits play on an even field.

Thank god Harvard and the CDC are Trustworthy entities.

Then perhaps you might enlighten us as to who we should trust?

25% is better than nothing my friend.

stanky wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 10:09 pm

arthwollipot wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 3:14 am

stanky wrote: ↑Wed Jan 17, 2024 2:37 amDrinking fluorides has no benefit to health.

That's not true.

Griffin SO, Regnier E, Griffin PM, Huntley VN. Effectiveness of fluoride in preventing caries in adults. J Dent Res. 2007;86(5):410–414.

I said "drinking", not brushing teeth. It's in most toothpaste, if people want it. Putting it in the water, as mentioned, is a bit heavy-handed.

Tell me you didn't read it without telling me you didn't read it.

Abstract:

To date, no systematic reviews have found fluoride to be effective in preventing dental caries in adults. The objective of this meta-analysis was to examine the effectiveness of self- and professionally applied fluoride and water fluoridation among adults. We used a random-effects model to estimate the effect size of fluoride (absolute difference in annual caries increment or relative risk ratio) for all adults aged 20+ years and for adults aged 40+ years. Twenty studies were included in the final body of evidence. Among studies published after/during 1980, any fluoride (self- and professionally applied or water fluoridation) annually averted 0.29 (95%CI: 0.16–0.42) carious coronal and 0.22 (95%CI: 0.08–0.37) carious root surfaces. The prevented fraction for water fluoridation was 27% (95%CI: 19%–34%). These findings suggest that fluoride prevents caries among adults of all ages.

Stanky:
How do you heat your home in the winter? How do you get your water? Do you and Mary grow all your own food? And when you do make the trip to town for things you cannot provide for yourselves on the stankerosa, How do get there?

You appear to be an anti science nut job who couldn't live without science.

Please tell us all otherwise. I'm sure we'd like to know that we might live better without science.