Liberal Forum

Omicron420 » 01 Dec 2021, 1:22 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 1:22 pm

The West is crumbling, while The East is on the rise.

Biden is the Patsy

lost in poetic social justification ^^^^^ real isn't real.

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 1:27 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 1:27 pm

This whole plandemic and Great Reset require preserving the narrative. He's not the first guy to get threatened with his job. Just did a quick search (even though this paper is irrelevant to the OP of this thread which is a study published in NEJM) and found what I expected:
https://weehingthong.org/2021/11/17/sim ... pregnancy/

"It follows an email from Professor Robert Scragg, the head of the School of Population Health at Auckland University, which urged Thornley and his co-author, Aleisha Brook, to “immediately publicly retract their article”. Such an intervention is almost unheard of in academia.  Thornley told The Spinoff that he had issued a correction to the paper last week, but that “following the [Scragg] letter, I have decided to withdraw it”.

Why wouldn't he be allowed to correct it? Instead he withdrew it under pressure to keep his job. Same thing happens in our bureaucracies and academia whether regarding Pharma or climate.
So why don't you try actually reviewing the math about the NEJM paper of the original post?

No, the Evie article does not reference the article in the New England Journal of Medicine, only the article in the anti vax magazine by Thornley.

It is common for Universities to have disciplinary actions when an academic has published a non peer reviewed paper that is shown to be false.

If he made a major mathematical error then the entire premise of the paper is incorrect.

​​​​​​
 

OdeToJoy » 01 Dec 2021, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 1:55 pm

No, the Evie article does not reference the article in the New England Journal of Medicine, only the article in the anti vax magazine by Thornley.

It is common for Universities to have disciplinary actions when an academic has published a non peer reviewed paper that is shown to be false.

If he made a major mathematical error then the entire premise of the paper is incorrect.

​​​​​​

I couldn't post the whole article. If you had gone to the article you would have found that the first link would have taken you to the NEJM article. Just as the study Tables 1-4 in the OP article was copied from that NEJM article.

Universities above all other institutions are the most guilty of removing staff that don't advance the narrative. That's how they wound up in the sad state they are today with the likes of trans-gender studies.

But you aren't applying logic. Consider it again:"It follows an email from Professor Robert Scragg, the head of the School of Population Health at Auckland University, which urged Thornley and his co-author, Aleisha Brook, to “immediately publicly retract their article”. Such an intervention is almost unheard of in academia.  Thornley told The Spinoff that he had issued a correction to the paper last week, but that “following the [Scragg] letter, I have decided to withdraw it”."
So the questions beg. Why would he want to bother correcting the paper if the outcome were not substantially the same?
If the outcome were not substantially the same, why did they prevent him from correcting it?

Where is the original paper, marked withdrawn, that would allow us to visit and see and/or recalculate the error for ourselves?
My guess is it would have been a close cousin to the exegesis of the NEJM paper in the OP of this thread.

FJB » 01 Dec 2021, 8:35 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 8:35 am

EVERY LIFE IS VALUABLE

BLACK LIVES????
 

nuckinfutz » 01 Dec 2021, 2:34 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 2:34 pm

BLACK LIVES????

All lives. 
 

Neo » 01 Dec 2021, 2:36 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 2:36 pm

All lives.

MY LIFE?????
 

nuckinfutz » 01 Dec 2021, 2:34 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 2:34 pm

BLACK LIVES????

Yep

nuckinfutz » 01 Dec 2021, 2:41 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 2:41 pm

MY LIFE?????

Yes.
 

OdeToJoy » 01 Dec 2021, 1:55 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 1:55 pm

No, the Evie article does not reference the article in the New England Journal of Medicine, only the article in the anti vax magazine by Thornley.

It is common for Universities to have disciplinary actions when an academic has published a non peer reviewed paper that is shown to be false.

If he made a major mathematical error then the entire premise of the paper is incorrect.

​​​​​​
 

you want to use that logic, biology has always kinetically eternally separated ancestors process conception to decomposed as the current numbers occupying space in this atmosphere but every university since dawn of civilization teaches each next generation that doesn't happen and yet life is actually self evident that each body is spontaneously alive when simultaneously here.

Now that dishonest mantra filters through the arts, religions, politics, economics each generation that wrote history to date justifying the actions as a greater good scenario.

Pengwin » 01 Dec 2021, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 1:01 pm

Most are.

A to Z is fine by me (no matter how it works out)...

No one on Earth hasn't had a moral dilemma on which in hindsight they had regrets.

Another way to put that is: Everyone makes mistakes.

Deezer Shoove » 01 Dec 2021, 3:34 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 3:34 pm

No one on Earth hasn't had a moral dilemma on which in hindsight they had regrets.

Another way to put that is: Everyone makes mistakes.

and very few ever correct them forward while continuing to repeat them ancestrally down the line to current events. ha ha ha ha evolving is so universal linking past, current, developing forward from now on.

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 2:28 pm

I couldn't post the whole article. If you had gone to the article you would have found that the first link would have taken you to the NEJM article. Just as the study Tables 1-4 in the OP article was copied from that NEJM article.

Universities above all other institutions are the most guilty of removing staff that don't advance the narrative. That's how they wound up in the sad state they are today with the likes of trans-gender studies.

But you aren't applying logic. Consider it again:"It follows an email from Professor Robert Scragg, the head of the School of Population Health at Auckland University, which urged Thornley and his co-author, Aleisha Brook, to “immediately publicly retract their article”. Such an intervention is almost unheard of in academia.  Thornley told The Spinoff that he had issued a correction to the paper last week, but that “following the [Scragg] letter, I have decided to withdraw it”."
So the questions beg. Why would he want to bother correcting the paper if the outcome were not substantially the same?
If the outcome were not substantially the same, why did they prevent him from correcting it?

Where is the original paper, marked withdrawn, that would allow us to visit and see and/or recalculate the error for ourselves?
My guess is it would have been a close cousin to the exegesis of the NEJM paper in the OP of this thread.

No, it isn't unheard of in academia.  Universities protect their reputations.

When you publish a piece of crap, that has been completely debunked, you either retract or be fired.
 
 

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 2:28 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 2:28 pm

I couldn't post the whole article. If you had gone to the article you would have found that the first link would have taken you to the NEJM article. Just as the study Tables 1-4 in the OP article was copied from that NEJM article.

Universities above all other institutions are the most guilty of removing staff that don't advance the narrative. That's how they wound up in the sad state they are today with the likes of trans-gender studies.

But you aren't applying logic. Consider it again:"It follows an email from Professor Robert Scragg, the head of the School of Population Health at Auckland University, which urged Thornley and his co-author, Aleisha Brook, to “immediately publicly retract their article”. Such an intervention is almost unheard of in academia.  Thornley told The Spinoff that he had issued a correction to the paper last week, but that “following the [Scragg] letter, I have decided to withdraw it”."
So the questions beg. Why would he want to bother correcting the paper if the outcome were not substantially the same?
If the outcome were not substantially the same, why did they prevent him from correcting it?

Where is the original paper, marked withdrawn, that would allow us to visit and see and/or recalculate the error for ourselves?
My guess is it would have been a close cousin to the exegesis of the NEJM paper in the OP of this thread.

Heaping **** upon ****.

Blackvegetable » 01 Dec 2021, 3:57 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 3:57 pm

Heaping **** upon ****.

when theories are countered by theologies you have a vertical tornado working against a whirlpool meeting on the surface of the water. one spins counter to the other.

freeman » 01 Dec 2021, 8:07 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 8:07 am

I thought this deserved its own thread for young women to note, and particularly defenders of Big Pharma and the government agencies they "own", through regulatory capture.
Excerpts:
https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/study ... id-vaccine

"Study Shows That Up To 8 In 10 Women Had A Miscarriage After Getting The Covid Vaccine Before The Third Trimester"

"One particular finding – that related to miscarriages – has been seemingly overlooked (and perhaps even intentionally hidden, as some claim, since corrections were made to the report). But first, it’s important to keep in mind that miscarriages are defined as “the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week.” The general rate of miscarriages in the U.S. ranges from as low as 10% to as high as 26%, depending on the medical publication."

"However, this study is focusing specifically on how the Covid vaccine impacts pregnancy, including by trimester. So to more precisely calculate the miscarriage rate, we have to remember that miscarriages, by definition, occur before the 20-week gestation mark. This means that all 700 women who received the vaccine in the third trimester must be excluded from the calculation because they were already past being able to have a technical miscarriage. So really, 104 out of 127 women experienced a miscarriage. This means the miscarriage rate of women who received the vaccine in the first or second trimester is actually 81.9%, or 8 out of 10 women – way, way above the national average."

good deal....a real can of worms to opened up there....I salute you

Pengwin » 01 Dec 2021, 5:23 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 5:23 pm

That's not life on this planet.

Unlike you I live in the real world...
 

everyone lives in the real world, but they define themselves as a separate intellectual reality instead of members in the same species.

Pengwin » 01 Dec 2021, 5:34 pm » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 5:34 pm

Mistakes are made, by everyone, but something rational can still be applied from one end to its logical conclusion.

The fetus or the young woman?  The young woman, always, as she can make many, many more fetuses...

As an outsider to this fetus stuff, I can only make observations.

I have said before, words to this effect:
Some women view abortion as losing a little weight at the clinic
and most (I assume) look at it as one of the biggest decisions in their life.

You are a shallow person so I'm sure you can understand that point of view.

DeezerShoove » 02 Dec 2021, 5:13 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Dec 2021, 5:13 pm

As an outsider to this fetus stuff, I can only make observations.

I have said before, words to this effect:
Some women view abortion as losing a little weight at the clinic
and most (I assume) look at it as one of the biggest decisions in their life.

You are a shallow person so I'm sure you can understand that point of view.

https://youtu.be/qcEoF-foaa8

Vegasgiants » 01 Dec 2021, 8:45 am » wrote: ↑

01 Dec 2021, 8:45 am

Because you are on a thread that is posting fake news about the shot and you are not challenging it

"Nothing to see here folks, move along, move along."

"Baby of ‘fully vaccinated’ mom dies after born bleeding from mouth, nose: VAERS report
A two-year-old’s death which was then scrubbed from the website, a neonate’s hemorrhaging death, and an eight-year-old’s heart attack were among recent VAERS reports

(LifeSiteNews) – A baby whose mother received two COVID vaccine shots during her last trimester of pregnancy was born bleeding from his mouth and nose, and died the day after his birth, according to a recent report to the U.S. government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System from a foreign “regulatory authority.”

"Among the other reports:

• Another nursing newborn, who was pending discharge from hospital, suddenly developed problems after his mother received a second dose of Pfizer’s vaccine on September 9. Within 24 hours, the baby experienced a significant drop in heart rate, low oxygen in the blood causing him to turn blue, and he developed difficulties sucking and swallowing. An ultrasound of his head revealed brain blood clots that “were not present prior to vaccination,” according to the VAERS report, which concludes that baby was transferred to higher level of care for neurological evaluation.
• A report on a five-year-old girl in Iowa who had underlying health conditions but was doing well is among those recently added to VAERS. She was injected with Pfizer’s vaccine November 18 and was monitored in hospital. She was discharged from hospital a day later, but her father found her pulseless and not breathing. She had died unexpectedly during the night, three days after the shot.
• An 11-year-old girl from the state of Georgia died the same day that she was vaccinated with Pfizer’s vaccine meant for children over the age of 12. No cause was stated in the VAERS report.
• An eight-year-old boy from Wyoming who was “totally healthy and active” prior to receiving a first dose of Pfizer’s COVID pediatric shot was hospitalized in an Intensive Care Unit with myocarditis, an inflammatory life-threatening heart condition, two days later in November.
• A previously healthy10-year-old girl in Oregon developed chest pain and had difficulty breathing and was hospitalized for myocarditis four days after getting Pfizer’s shot, even though she had already had COVID a year earlier.
• In September, a 14-year-old from North Carolina received a first dose of Pfizer’s vaccine and the following day was drooling, could only mumble when speaking and was in an “altered state” at his school, when an ambulance was called and he was taken to hospital where he was diagnosed with a stroke and had surgery to remove clot from his brain.

 

• A 13-year-old from Maryland suffered a fatal heart attack 15 days after receiving a Pfizer shot.
• A nine-year-old girl in Southern California had a seizure lasting 30 seconds about a minute after receiving her first dose of COVID vaccine in November.
• A 16-year-old Wisconsin girl with cancer whose death report was received by VAERS in November was found deceased in her bed the third morning after her shot in September with “excessive amounts of blood along with large blood clots that appear to have come vaginally.” No autopsy was ordered, according to the report.

Toddler death scrubbed from dataOther recent reports to VAERS include the death of a two-year-old Alaska boy following COVID vaccination. The report of his death briefly appeared in reports posted on VAERS. The record said the boy “began bleeding out the mouth, eyes, nose and ears within six hours of the shot” and died the same evening. The report appeared briefly on the VAERS website on Thanksgiving Monday in a batch of 14,529 records which were downloaded, according to a VAERS analysis website run by an anonymous data tracker. The retracted reports were then reloaded onto the website on December 3, but the record of the two-year-old’s death was not among them."
more
https://marychocomog.wordpress.com/2021 ... rs-report/