somebody gonna get burned
Disclose.tv on Gab: ''
Disclose.tv on Gab: 'JUST IN - Fox 26 Reporter Ivory Hecker says live on air that she has been "muzzled" by Fox. Corp and announces Project Veritas will drop her story tomorrow.'gab.com
too late dickweed
Someone here who works in the medical community did make a good argument for how the big numbers were generated from small samples. As as engineer, I have a built-in suspicion of this practice, because it seems that all the interesting bits of data like to hide in-between the sampling events.
www.foxnews.com
I'm not a pain in the ass.Na, I think that the flu-stat arguments were before your insertion as the pain-in-the-ass de jour
Excess-death comparisons are usually subject to the accuracy of the model being used for the comparison. One can do sort of simple extrapolation like "the population grows by about 2% each year, so excess deaths should grow by the same amount and so there's my baseline". Good, but not great. Then there are the "American models" and "European models" and so on that take into account more detailed demographic factors and establish upper and lower confidence limits, and just like any other sophisticated model, we can make those tell us anything we want.
But if you look at overall deaths in the past few years:
View attachment 7647700
... it shouldn't take a model of any sort to show that something really, really bad kicked in during the spring of 2020. The interesting thing of course is that the number of excess deaths in 2020 exceeded the number of "died from/died with" Covid deaths by about 150k, or roughly 40% more. This would appear to be the basis of the argument that lockdowns killed a lot of people, and I believe it (particularly if one starts breaking down excess deaths by age group, and finds that the 26-44 group suffered something like a 25% increase despite not being particularly vulnerable to Covid).
Where I have problems is with the people who want to buy into the CDC numbers when it supports their argument but then discredit those same numbers when it supports something they don't want to hear. I don't know how it become so impossible to support the theories that: 1) Covid killed a ton of people; and 2) things we did in response to Covid (such as lockdowns, a suspension of medical services, and possible the vaccine) killed a ton of people. But the Venn diagram of people that support both of those concepts in their head simultaneously appears to have a single-digit population.
If the vaxx has killed ~25,000 people in the past five or so months, those numbers will likely show up here as well - particularly since they'll occur in the summer months where we would expect fewer deaths. Meanwhile, props to whomever decided to mine the data using those codes; that's pretty creative, and not the sort of concept that would have been developed by the "all the data is fraudulent!!!1!1!!" crowd.
don't forget, early on they isolated and sedated patients and basically killed them with vents.Na, I think that the flu-stat arguments were before your insertion as the pain-in-the-ass de jour
Excess-death comparisons are usually subject to the accuracy of the model being used for the comparison. One can do sort of simple extrapolation like "the population grows by about 2% each year, so excess deaths should grow by the same amount and so there's my baseline". Good, but not great. Then there are the "American models" and "European models" and so on that take into account more detailed demographic factors and establish upper and lower confidence limits, and just like any other sophisticated model, we can make those tell us anything we want.
But if you look at overall deaths in the past few years:
View attachment 7647700
... it shouldn't take a model of any sort to show that something really, really bad kicked in during the spring of 2020. The interesting thing of course is that the number of excess deaths in 2020 exceeded the number of "died from/died with" Covid deaths by about 150k, or roughly 40% more. This would appear to be the basis of the argument that lockdowns killed a lot of people, and I believe it (particularly if one starts breaking down excess deaths by age group, and finds that the 26-44 group suffered something like a 25% increase despite not being particularly vulnerable to Covid).
Where I have problems is with the people who want to buy into the CDC numbers when it supports their argument but then discredit those same numbers when it supports something they don't want to hear. I don't know how it become so impossible to support the theories that: 1) Covid killed a ton of people; and 2) things we did in response to Covid (such as lockdowns, a suspension of medical services, and possible the vaccine) killed a ton of people. But the Venn diagram of people that support both of those concepts in their head simultaneously appears to have a single-digit population.
If the vaxx has killed ~25,000 people in the past five or so months, those numbers will likely show up here as well - particularly since they'll occur in the summer months where we would expect fewer deaths. Meanwhile, props to whomever decided to mine the data using those codes; that's pretty creative, and not the sort of concept that would have been developed by the "all the data is fraudulent!!!1!1!!" crowd.
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Putin is a very smart man. Not that I like that SOB as he is as evil as they come, but I'll give credit where it's due. He waited and manipulated, got PJ, and now is busy pointing out how we, The Republic, cannot even follow our own rules and a mockery we've become on planet Earth, Milky Way. He's loving this, as are china, iran, terrorist groups, all enemies of the USA. Our allies, whilst they may have disliked "orange man" they certainly are probably beyond disbelief at what happened here.
Na, I think that the flu-stat arguments were before your insertion as the pain-in-the-ass de jour
Excess-death comparisons are usually subject to the accuracy of the model being used for the comparison. One can do sort of simple extrapolation like "the population grows by about 2% each year, so excess deaths should grow by the same amount and so there's my baseline". Good, but not great. Then there are the "American models" and "European models" and so on that take into account more detailed demographic factors and establish upper and lower confidence limits, and just like any other sophisticated model, we can make those tell us anything we want.
But if you look at overall deaths in the past few years:
View attachment 7647700
... it shouldn't take a model of any sort to show that something really, really bad kicked in during the spring of 2020. The interesting thing of course is that the number of excess deaths in 2020 exceeded the number of "died from/died with" Covid deaths by about 150k, or roughly 40% more. This would appear to be the basis of the argument that lockdowns killed a lot of people, and I believe it (particularly if one starts breaking down excess deaths by age group, and finds that the 26-44 group suffered something like a 25% increase despite not being particularly vulnerable to Covid).
Where I have problems is with the people who want to buy into the CDC numbers when it supports their argument but then discredit those same numbers when it supports something they don't want to hear. I don't know how it become so impossible to support the theories that: 1) Covid killed a ton of people; and 2) things we did in response to Covid (such as lockdowns, a suspension of medical services, and possible the vaccine) killed a ton of people. But the Venn diagram of people that support both of those concepts in their head simultaneously appears to have a single-digit population.
If the vaxx has killed ~25,000 people in the past five or so months, those numbers will likely show up here as well - particularly since they'll occur in the summer months where we would expect fewer deaths. Meanwhile, props to whomever decided to mine the data using those codes; that's pretty creative, and not the sort of concept that would have been developed by the "all the data is fraudulent!!!1!1!!" crowd.
www.breitbart.com
ABC: One Scientist Who Signed Lancet Letter Dismissing Lab Leak Theory Now Thinks Lab Leak Is More Likely, ‘Several’ Now Uncertain
On Monday's broadcast of ABC's "Good Morning America," ABC News Senior National Correspondent Terry Moran reported that one of the scientists who signed a | Clips
If you're china and you know a defector with direct knowledge that the virus was purposefully released, maybe you get out in front of that with 'lab leak'.
www.revolver.news
Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge
Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge - Revolver News
Unindicted co-conspirators could unravel the full story of what the FBI knew in advance about the January 6th Capitol Riots.
Robert Barnes Article of the Day: Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Jun 15, 2021 at 10:41am
More evidence coming out continually... "In many cases the unindicted co-conspirators appear to be much more aggressive and egregious participants in the very so-called “conspiracy” serving as the basis for charging those indicted. The question immediately arises as to why this is the case, and forces us to consider whether certain individuals are being protected from indictment because they were involved in 1/6 as undercover operatives or confidential informants for a federal agency....this would imply that elements of the federal government were active instigators in the most egregious and spectacular aspects of 1/6, amounting to a monumental entrapment scheme used as a pretext to imprison otherwise harmless protestors at the Capitol — and in a much larger sense used to frame the entire MAGA movement as potential domestic terrorists.
If it turns out that the federal government (FBI, Army Counterintelligence, or a similar agency) had undercover agents or confidential informants embedded in any of the groups involved in 1/6, the “federal intelligence agencies failing to warn of a potential for violence” looks less like an innocent mistake and more like something sinister."
There isn't. SCOTUS would have to make it out of whole cloth. Not saying they wouldn't, or even that they shouldn't, but it is definitely not contemplated anywhere. But my main point, which I think is correct, is that IF there is provable fraud, then one of two things will happen. Either there will be a negotiated outcome, or there will be conflict. The court may help negotiate that outcome, but if it goes to the court as an issue that is intractable going in, why would it be less intractable coming out? That implies that respect for the court is greater than the lust for power.
There have been several 9-0 votes of late. This could be setting the stage for a 9-0 vote invalidating the Election and voiding the Inaug of Biden. The only peaceful hope would be a unanimous decision.
A constitutional convention would be a disaster. Do you realize what the majority of people in this country would want?
Conventional wisdom is that these decisions are a way of telling the Democrats to fuck off on court packing. If you notice, all of the split decisions are on weird ideological lines. Sotomayor, who is the only truly awful justice on the court, is having a hard time playing along, and is writing a lot of her own concurring opinions.
