Ebionite
Well-Known Member
LOL. I don't care what you think about reliable sources.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Most recent cases and deaths of Covid-19 are unvaccinated.
- Thread starter shunyadragon
- Start date
It is not my judgment as to the reliable source Fact Check. It is the historical reliability of the site. It provides specific referenced scientific information concerning where Kennedy is wrong going back to well before COVID-19.
LibGuides: Modern World History: Media / Website Reliability: Media Bias / Fact Checking Websites
LibGuides: Modern World History: Media / Website Reliability: Media Bias / Fact Checking Websites
FactCheck.org
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
FactCheck is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
- Media Bias / Fact Check
An independent website that rates the bias, factual accuracy, and credibility of media sources...MBFC is trusted by major media outlets and IFCN (International Fact-Checking Network) fact-checkers, frequently being referenced by sources such as USA Today, Reuters Fact Check, Science Feedback, Washington Post, and NPR.
What is the fallacy criticizing the source?
What Is the Genetic Fallacy? | Definition & Examples
The genetic fallacy is the act of rejecting or accepting an argument on the basis of its origin rather than its content. Under the genetic fallacy, we
The genetic fallacy is the act of rejecting or accepting an argument on the basis of its origin rather than its content. Under the genetic fallacy, we judge a claim by paying too much attention to its source or history, even though this criticism is irrelevant to the truth of the claim.
Last edited:
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
So why can't you describe the specifics of that information?
Already did in posts #159, 160, 161 and 174.
I am beginning to question your literacy. My source is reliable and the information is clear, specific and documented with reference.
Talking nonsense again friend -- Appeal to Authority Fallacy is not a valid argument always a pleasure to meet someone who understands what an argument is
.... unfortunately this has not been a pleasure .. Bless your heart Sorry Friend but you were the one who was duped - your claim proven false such that you had no response at the time .. but now you pop up reposting this false nonsense as if you are not aware that it was proven false.
The claim that the Vax is Safe -- was shown to be false .. A Severe Adverse Reaction "SAR" of 1 in 800 is not even close to safe .. and ridiculously unsafe for Males 16-30.
You have not mentioned a single specific error .. never mind corrected with references ? - so what you are saying is false nonsense... and I have no idea what this ridiculous false agenda/ cover up nonsense is about ...
That you feel insulted and abused by the fact that you believed the Gov't propaganda.. I am sorry . ... but you need to be more skeptical about what you believe .. the progressive liberal woke club lies often .. and the Covid Lies were fast and furious and numerous .. stop insulting and abusing yourself by ingesting these lies.
.
Ebionite
Well-Known Member
From your #159:
Get back to me when you can describe specific scientific information. Hint: science is repeatable.
Why would you ask someone if they are an epidemiologist ? .. Have you yet to figure out what Ad Hom Fallacy is .. ? how about Appeal to Authority Fallacy ?
You were given a journal article --- if the author is not an epidemiologist -- does that mean the information no good ?
and what about the Epidemiologists saying the Vax is not effective ? when other Epidemiologists say it is effective ..
Was the moron over at Factcheck.org that someone posted an epidemiologist ?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You may be conflating your fallacies. It may have been you that violated the Appeal to False Authority fallacy. If I was talking about tuning up old time cars with rotors and points and someone said "Well Jim said the timing should be two degrees past dead center, and he should know, he is a doctor" that would be an appeal to false authority. So asking about the credential of your source is not unwarranted. It does not mean that he is automatically wrong, but if he is not an expert in the field his opinion does not carry a lot of weight.
Again, not necessarily. And also what was the quality of the journal? There are all sorts of journals that pay to publish these days so again, care has to be used in choosing one's sources. I am not saying that your source was bad, I am merely saying that they may have a valid complaint.
Then that should be settled with numbers. And without going over the evidence the evidence I have seen is that they are very effective. They are no perfect. No vaccine is perfect. But deaths of the infected are much lower for the immunized. That has been well supported in this thread. Measuring the effect on the rate of spread is more difficult to do. But it rather easy to check the vaccination status of those that died from the disease.
Ooh, now look at how is using an ad hom. And not using logic either. Do not get mad just because a source was likely to be bad.
What a pile of laughable nonsense .. so no surprise you are chuckling .. no hypocrisy though .. your the one spewing false nonsense.
"Billions of Vaccines administered ... There should be people dropping dead everywhere if your claims are true"
Completely false nonsense .. Severe Adverse Reaction does not mean these people die every time. Good grief this is horrible logic friend .. and my saying this is not an insult .. just a statement of fact .. that you find the fact insulting .. is not my fault .. I am just the messenger.
You were told previously -- shown a study stating that 1 in 800 have an SAR --- "Severe Adverse Reaction" one of the main metrics used for determination of Safety .. also called Severe Adverse Effect.
Your claim has been demonstrated false .. same way it was previousy .. what part of 1 in 800 SAR is not "SAFE" did you not understand the first time ?
"What was the quality of the Journal" ?? How would you know ... ? and there is no fallacy .. appeal to a false authority .. but Ad Hom and assumed premise fallacy on your part.
But what's more .. the data I posted is from a Journal that you provided ?! .. 1 in 800 SAR are you now claiming this was not Credible.
"That should be settled with numbers" - Exactly .. what part of 1 in 800 SAR --- did you not understand the forth time I went over your own numbers with you ?
Glad to hear you admit it.
I've nothing to add.
Of course I will admit that you have no argument .. and adding nothing to nothing does not add up to an argument
It's not lack of argument.Of course I will admit that you have no argument .. and adding nothing to nothing does not add up to an argument
Just that having it fall on deaf eyes portends futility.
Kennedy was wrong about the Monkey testing.
Kennedy is also wrong to claim that studies of the then-candidate vaccines in monkeys showed no difference in viral concentration in the nasopharynx and indicated the vaccines would have no effect on transmission. In a study published in July 2020, animals vaccinated with the Moderna vaccine and then purposely infected with the virus showed much lower levels of virus in samples from the nose and lung than purposely infected unvaccinated animals.
The authors even wrote that their study “showed early prevention of viral replication in the upper and lower airways after a high-dose challenge,” noting that “the ability to limit viral replication in both the lower and the upper airways has important implications for vaccine-induced prevention of both SARS-CoV-2 disease and transmission.”
The results were similar for Johnson & Johnson’s single-dose adenoviral COVID-19 vaccine. In a study published in Nature in July 2020, only one of the six vaccinated monkeys had any detectable virus in its nose at any time point — in sharp contrast to the unvaccinated animals, which had much more virus for a longer time.
The monkey results were more ambiguous for the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine. One vaccine design, BNT162b1, showed a more clear reduction in the viral load in nasal samples, while another, BNT162b2 — the one that was ultimately used in the vaccine — did not. But it’s not true that the amount of virus in the unvaccinated and vaccinated animals was “identical.” One day after infection, the BNT162b2-vaccinated animals had higher amounts of virus in their noses than unvaccinated controls, but for all other tested subsequent days, starting on day 3, none of the BNT162b2-vaccinated animals had any detectable virus at all in their noses, unlike the unvaccinated animals. Swabs taken from the back of the throat also showed both vaccine designs reduced the amount of virus there.
It’s possible Kennedy is thinking of the monkey test results for the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine. Those results, released in May 2020, did not show any difference in the viral load in the nose among vaccinated and unvaccinated animals — something that the Moderna authors commented on and contrasted with their results. But the AstraZeneca vaccine uses a different design than the mRNA shots and was never used in the U.S. And despite the monkey results, subsequent research suggests the AstraZeneca vaccine did reduce transmission in people.
More to follow for the illiterate
Kennedy was dead wrong about ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. So were many extreme right conservatives for check-warming exercises with Kennedy.
RFK Jr.’s COVID-19 Deceptions - FactCheck.org
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s battle against vaccines -- and against the institutions that promote them -- goes back to at least the mid-2000s, as we explain in the first article of this series. But the arrival of COVID-19 gave the environmental attorney fresh grounds to intensify his attacks and a...
Despite the fact that several large, randomized controlled trials have found that neither the antiparasitic drug ivermectin nor the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine benefits COVID-19 patients, Kennedy continues to push these unproven drugs as effective treatments against the disease.
“They had to destroy ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and discredit it, and they had to tell everybody it’s not effective because if they had acknowledged that it’s effective … the whole $200 billion vaccine enterprise would have collapsed,” he told Rogan, during his June interview.
In Kennedy’s logic, “they,” presumably the government and scientists, “had to” lie about the effectiveness of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine because by law, “you cannot issue … an emergency use authorization to a vaccine if there is an existing medication that has been approved for any purpose and that is demonstrated effective against the target illness,” he said.
One of the legal requirements of an EUA, according to the FDA, is that “there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” But as Georgia State University College of Law professor Allison M. Whelan told us in an email, “RFK Jr. misunderstands what this provision means in practice and how the FDA interprets that provision.”
First, the FDA distinguishes between products that treat a disease and those that prevent a disease, such as a vaccine.
“An EUA for a safe and effective treatment would have no impact on an EUA for a safe and effective vaccine. In broader terms, one EUA does not preclude other EUAs,” California Western School of Law professor Joanna Sax told us in an email.
And even if a drug had approval, rather than authorization, to treat COVID-19, that would not prevent the FDA from authorizing or approving a vaccine, and vice-versa. Sax mentioned the antiviral Paxlovid as an example, which got an EUA as a COVID-19 treatment in December 2021, even though Pfizer/BioNTech’s COVID-19 vaccine was already approved.
Kennedy is still wrong even if he is thinking of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as preventives. In that case, Whelan said, “the FDA could have still had the flexibility to issue EUAs and, ultimately, approvals, for both.”
As an FDA guidance document explains, the existence of an approved product doesn’t preclude an EUA for another product — the approved product must also be “adequate” and “available.” The guidance explains that, for example, a product may be considered “unavailable” if there’s not enough supply of it, or “inadequate” if the approved alternative has contraindications for specific populations.
Legally, then, Kennedy’s argument is bogus. It’s also predicated on the incorrect notion that these drugs work for COVID-19, when they do not.
As we’ve written, clinical trials of both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine have shown no evidence of effectiveness against COVID-19.
The National Institutes of Health, which recommends against the use of ivermectin, reviewed at least a dozen randomized controlled trials, including three large ones — the Together trial, the ACTIV-6 trial and COVID-OUT trial — and all of them showed that ivermectin had no significant impact on symptoms, emergency department visits, hospitalization or death associated with COVID-19.
They're not the ones who need the education.
I was referring to @Ebionite unable to read the references himself.