That'll Show 'Em

[revelarts]

Rev .. don't think anyone here goes to Rumble.

All us old people should to try new things from time to time.

[SassyLady]

All us old people should to try new things from time to time.

I practically live on Rumble since Google and YouTube starting censoring everything

[fj1200]

Shouldn't the standard be things that are factual?

[revelarts]

Shouldn't the standard be things that are factual?

Should be.
Sad thing is, some people aren't willing to look at or accept any facts that don't align with what they've believed for years about some subjects.

And some folks can't make any conclusions based on facts.
"evidence doesn't say anything now other than correlation and correlating to multiple possibilities, some stated and some not."
I mean, that will alway be the case, on any subject.
So there's no need to change any opinion about anything.

FACTS will always make "correlations to multiple possibilities"

Is Joe Biden less competent and capable now than he was 20 years ago?
Well the evidence doesn't say anything now other than correlation and correlating to multiple possibilities.

But people who are being honest will say that the some evidence on hand CLEARLY points to the fact that some possibilities are so likely as to be reasonably accepted as fact.
Rather than pretend the jury is still out.
In case of testing pharmaceuticals the burden on proof is the pharmaceuticals to prove they are SAFE & EFFECTIVE. ANY negative affects noted during it's use is rightfully assumed to be caused by the NEW drug until proven otherwise.
At least that used to be the standard.

But hey multiple possibilities.. could be climate change, or too much sleep, or too much exercise, or eggs, or cough Syrup .."scientist say".
but evidence can't say anything or point to anything.

[revelarts]

BTW

Local child diagnosed with mumps

But amazingly the child was in fact vaccinated.
the best version of "the facts" is that the mumps portion of the MMR vaccines are 88+percent effective. great!
(but even that's questionable)
If 10% of 10,000 vaccinated people get the mumps that's 1000 people.
If 1000 people in any city got the mumps , how many people would assume that ALL had been vaccinated?
How many would just Blame "antivaxxers" anyway? Without any evidence of that.
Next time we hear of an "outbreak", maybe the assumption should be that the vaccine haven't worked? Is that to crazy to imagine?
Instead of blaming antivaxxers? Since we're just guessing anyway.



In the link below we listen to a PRO-Vaccine Nurse go though all the steps she's "supposed to" when 1 of her 4 vaccinated children gets the mumps.
-Practicing Nurse surprised to find that her child got the mumps, Then had her family checked to see if they needed boosters for any of their vaccines. Everyone in house ends up with boosters . She then re-discovers various info such as the vaccines are only supoosed to be effective to various degrees 80-96% depending on the disease. But was shocked to find that everyone in her house got the mumps but 1. Even after proper isolation. Including her, even though she had tested as immune to mumps.
Her family somehow was only protected by lest than 25%, nearly whole family got mumps.
Was also shocked at how many assumed that she and her family had not been vaccinated and the negative wave sent their way.
And how many were blaming "anti-vaxxers" for the outbreak.
https://rumble.com/v4r0igq-practicin...mumps-and.html

But hey Maybe the fact that her whole family got the mumps isn't evidence of anything concerning the effectiveness of vaccines.
If the vaccine works on ONE person that's 100% evidence that they work. and no one should question them.
If they don't work for a few folks, well then that's NOT evidence of anything... evidence doesn't say anything now other than correlation and correlating to multiple possibilities.

[revelarts]

--- moved

[fj1200]

And some folks can't make any conclusions based on facts.
"evidence doesn't say anything now other than correlation and correlating to multiple possibilities, some stated and some not."
I mean, that will alway be the case, on any subject.
So there's no need to change any opinion about anything.

Taking things out of context and being an a$$ doesn't help your case.

Should be.
Sad thing is, some people aren't willing to look at or accept any facts that don't align with what they've believed for years about some subjects.

It's called confirmation bias. We all suffer from it.

[revelarts]

Taking things out of context and being an a$$ doesn't help your case.

the point is, based on what you said, the context does NOT matter.
"evidence doesn't say anything now other than correlation and correlating to multiple possibilities, some stated and some not."

There's NO amount of evidence on any subject that can overcome that kind of objection.
By defaults it puts any real conclusion in the unknown future.
And simply dismisses all evidence and asserts all the current facts at hand don't even vaguely point to ANY single possibility known or unknown.

Maybe i could have pointed that out more nicely.
But it doesn't change the fact of what your words mean.

If you don't want to accept any evidence or thier obvious conclusions "now" fine.
But there's no need to be upset when i just point out what you said.

It's called confirmation bias. We all suffer from it.

Yes, sadly we all do. I know i'm guilty.
and we all should try to recognize it and deal with it.
I don't like doing it myself. but I do want to be honest about what's going on in the world and not just hold to my opinions because they are my opinions.

[fj1200]

the point is, based on what you said, the context does NOT matter.
"evidence doesn't say anything now other than correlation and correlating to multiple possibilities, some stated and some not."

There's NO amount of evidence on any subject that can overcome that kind of objection.
By defaults it puts any real conclusion in the unknown future.
And simply dismisses all evidence and asserts all the current facts at hand don't even vaguely point to ANY single possibility known or unknown.

Maybe i could have pointed that out more nicely.
But it doesn't change the fact of what your words mean.

If you don't want to accept any evidence or thier obvious conclusions "now" fine.
But there's no need to be upset when i just point out what you said.

You clearly don't understand what I said so please don't try to tell me what I said. The link you posted essentially said nothing so therefore nothing can be derived from it. That is what you don't seem to understand. Since you like to passively aggressively troll my words from other threads then I'm sure you locate said thread where I'll be happy to correct your understanding rather than whatever you call this.

And to the bold? Patently false.

[revelarts]

You clearly don't understand what I said so please don't try to tell me what I said. The link you posted essentially said nothing so therefore nothing can be derived from it. That is what you don't seem to understand. Since you like to passively aggressively troll my words from other threads then I'm sure you locate said thread where I'll be happy to correct your understanding rather than whatever you call this.

And to the bold? Patently false.

Previously in this thread...

I have no problem updating results if more evidence changes the current picture.
Will you accept the evidence as it appears TODAY?

...These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown...

The evidence doesn't say anything now other than correlation and correlating to multiple possibilities, some stated and some not. I'm expecting that if the evidence changes the picture then it won't be making the internet rounds.

However what the link in the evidence says is"
"...These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown...

https://www.cureus.com/articles/1962...ic-in-japan#!/


So maybe you can see why your comment "evidence doesn't say ANYTHING"... correlation blah blah Multiple possibilities unstated ...blah. threw me off.
Sorry man but this reply is just not credible. and it's not a problem with my reading comprehension.
If you meant to say something different you should have used different language.
But the language you used is just professional backhanded dismissal of the facts. not an honest rebuttal or a true assessment of what's been presented.

... the beginning of the link outlines the question:

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, excess deaths including cancer have become a concern in Japan, which has a rapidly aging population. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate how age-adjusted mortality rates (AMRs) for different types of cancer in Japan changed during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022). Official statistics from Japan were used to compare observed annual and monthly AMRs with predicted rates based on pre-pandemic (2010-2019) figures using logistic regression analysis. No significant excess mortality was observed during the first year of the pandemic (2020). However, some excess cancer mortalities were observed in 2021 after mass vaccination with the first and second vaccine doses, and significant excess mortalities were observed for all cancers and some specific types of cancer (including ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer) after mass vaccination with the third dose in 2022. AMRs for the four cancers with the most deaths (lung, colorectal, stomach, and liver) showed a decreasing trend until the first year of the pandemic in 2020, but the rate of decrease slowed in 2021 and 2022. This study discusses possible explanations for these increases in age-adjusted cancer mortality rates."

the part I quoted is from the conclusion

...These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown...

So TODAY, they've practically ruled out lack of Cancer Care, and the covid virus itself.
the only 2 major factors in Japan (an Elsewhere) that were significantly different in people's lives. to cause the EXCESS cancer deaths reported.
As i said before if you want to keep the jury out, that's fine, but AT THIS POINT the evidence points to the vaccines.
Even if you'd rather not go there.
the studies rules Out Cancer Care, and the covid virus itself But if you want to say it could be multiple possibilities, some stated and some not.
Fine. but please don't try to gaslight me saying that's what the study/evidence points to.
Yes, the study leaves the door open, as science should, but AT THIS POINT the BEST and most likely suspects are the vaccines.
If you want to wait 8-10 years for more studies. fine. that's what i wanted to do as well. While not assuming they are safe & effective until then.
But right NOW, they look like crap already.

[fj1200]

Previously in this thread...



However what the link in the evidence says is"
"...These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown...

https://www.cureus.com/articles/1962...ic-in-japan#!/


So maybe you can see why your comment "evidence doesn't say ANYTHING"... correlation blah blah Multiple possibilities unstated ...blah. threw me off.
Sorry man but this reply is just not credible. and it's not a problem with my reading comprehension.
If you meant to say something different you should have used different language.
But the language you used is just professional backhanded dismissal of the facts. not an honest rebuttal or a true assessment of what's been presented.

... the beginning of the link outlines the question:

"During the COVID-19 pandemic, excess deaths including cancer have become a concern in Japan, which has a rapidly aging population. Thus, this study aimed to evaluate how age-adjusted mortality rates (AMRs) for different types of cancer in Japan changed during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022). Official statistics from Japan were used to compare observed annual and monthly AMRs with predicted rates based on pre-pandemic (2010-2019) figures using logistic regression analysis. No significant excess mortality was observed during the first year of the pandemic (2020). However, some excess cancer mortalities were observed in 2021 after mass vaccination with the first and second vaccine doses, and significant excess mortalities were observed for all cancers and some specific types of cancer (including ovarian cancer, leukemia, prostate cancer, lip/oral/pharyngeal cancer, pancreatic cancer, and breast cancer) after mass vaccination with the third dose in 2022. AMRs for the four cancers with the most deaths (lung, colorectal, stomach, and liver) showed a decreasing trend until the first year of the pandemic in 2020, but the rate of decrease slowed in 2021 and 2022. This study discusses possible explanations for these increases in age-adjusted cancer mortality rates."

the part I quoted is from the conclusion

...These particularly marked increases in mortality rates of these ERα-sensitive cancers may be attributable to several mechanisms of the mRNA-LNP vaccination rather than COVID-19 infection itself or reduced cancer care due to the lockdown...

So TODAY, they've practically ruled out lack of Cancer Care, and the covid virus itself.
the only 2 major factors in Japan (an Elsewhere) that were significantly different in people's lives. to cause the EXCESS cancer deaths reported.
As i said before if you want to keep the jury out, that's fine, but AT THIS POINT the evidence points to the vaccines.
Even if you'd rather not go there.
the studies rules Out Cancer Care, and the covid virus itself But if you want to say it could be multiple possibilities, some stated and some not.
Fine. but please don't try to gaslight me saying that's what the study/evidence points to.
Yes, the study leaves the door open, as science should, but AT THIS POINT the BEST and most likely suspects are the vaccines.
If you want to wait 8-10 years for more studies. fine. that's what i wanted to do as well. While not assuming they are safe & effective until then.
But right NOW, they look like crap already.

Per usual you emphasize the wrong thing. It might be attributable to that and it also might not be. Nothing I said was incorrect no matter how much you misread it and misinterpret it. It's not worth going more into depth because it would just be what-ifs and you are looking for one thing to the exclusion of anything else.