Liberal Forum

golfboy » 02 Oct 2023, 7:59 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 7:59 pm

mainbitch loves to make claims that he can't support.

I can support the fact that my alma mater is a hell of a lot more highly rated and regarded than your cult school.

maineman » 02 Oct 2023, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 8:05 pm

and I wish good luck, and good health to the both of us!

As do I - in the face of your having done something not very smart. Allow me to show you what I mean.

This is from a couple of weeks ago - "the latest science," one might argue. I do not know if you have ever read a scientific abstract. I never had, until the global warming *** clowns annoyed me enough to do enough research to prove them retarded. Anyway, I will share an abstract with you. And then I will show you how a layman (a college-trained researcher would likely be situated to do an even more thorough due diligence) can reasonably assess the QUALITY of the information.

You see, some "peer review journals" (which is where science abstracts are shared) are agenda sites - just hacky **** that exists to corrupt science rather than further it. Even the most respected journals can be gotten to from time to time - but these "journals" are corrupt from the start. Anyway, assessing the quality and reputation of the journal itself is the first place to look.

Then, there are the reputations and bona fides of the study's authors. If the lead author on the study is a baccalaureate, you need look no farther to discount it as ****. No one funds such a study. It's an agenda piece by someone trying to be a "good boy." A recent foul example of this was the "study," published in the author's own online "journal, which found that 97% of scientists agreed with gorebal warning and attributed it to manmade causes. This fake study from a fake journal was ballyhooed by the dishonest media to the point that the lie is now proven reality to many millions.

Then there are conflicts of interest and reliability of the data. You want to pay attention to whether there are disclosures of conflicts and whether there are disclosures of low-reliability data inputs. Some studies are small scale, clinical studies, which are not the gold standard. Others will be meta-studies of MANY small scale studies, which are considered pretty useful in ironing out any kinks in the smaller studies. The study I am sharing with you is small scale, but pretty credible on all other fronts.

You will never see a large scale, gold standard study that is against the interests of big pharmaceutical studies, because the only money to fund such studies come from those sources - and they will bury the studies if they don't like the outcomes. 

So: ya look at the journal (its reputation, how long it has been around - any scandals), and ya look at the authors (ditto), and ya look at the type and quality of the study, and only then do you assess the credibility of what you are reading. 

Anyhow, here's link to the journal: https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/covid-vac ... all-hearts
The paper was also published in pubmed, which is a sort of governmental clearinghouse run by the NIH: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37724969/

The reputation of the journal of origin appears to be stellar. This is what I found: https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch ... 64&tip=sid

The lead author appears to be reasonably credible. Nakahara has 54 research works with 737 citations and 4,156 reads. It's not a record, but it indicates a reasonable and credible cv. I have no intention of doing a deep dive on Nakahara or the other researchers who put their names to this paper, but if you want to, the names are right at the top and you know as well as I how the google button works on the www.duckduckgo.  

There are no reported conflicts. There is no indication of unreliable data. 

In the next post is the abstract, written - as they all are - in plain, educated English. It indicates SOME heart damage in 100% of cases (this would include you and your loved ones) who took the jab.

https://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.230743

Background

Patients who developed myocarditis following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination show abnormalities on cardiac MRI. However, whether myocardial changes occur in asymptomatic individuals following vaccination is not well established.

Purpose

To assess myocardial 18Fluorine-fluorodeoxyglucose (18F-FDG) uptake on PET/CT in asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 vaccinated patients compared to nonvaccinated patients.

Materials and Methods

This retrospective study included patients who underwent 18F-FDG PET/CT for indications unrelated to myocarditis during the period before (11/1/2020 – 2/16/2021) and after (2/17/20121 – 3/31/2022) SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were available.Myocardial and axillary FDG uptake were quantitatively assessed using maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax). SUVmax values in all patients and in patients stratified by sex (male/female), age (<40, 41-60, >60 years), and time interval between vaccination and PET/CT were compared using Mann-Whitney U test or Kruskal-Wallis test with post ad -hoc Dwass, Steel, Critchlow-Fligner multiple comparison analysis.

Results

The study included 303 nonvaccinated patients (mean age, 52.9 years ± 14.9 [SD]; 157 females) and 700 vaccinated patients (mean age, 56.8 years ± 13.7 [SD]; 344 females). Vaccinated patients had overall higher myocardial FDG uptake compared to nonvaccinated patients (median SUVmax, 4.8 [IQR: 3.0-8.5] vs median SUVmax, 3.3 [IQR: 2.5-6.2]; P < .0001). Myocardial SUVmax was higher in vaccinated patients regardless of sex (median range, 4.7-4.9 [IQR: 2.9-8.6]) or patient age (median range, 4.7-5.6 [IQR: 2.9-8.6]) compared to corresponding nonvaccinated groups (sex median range, 3.2-3.9 [IQR: 2.4-7.2]; age median range, 3.3-3.3 [IQR: 2.3-6.1]; P range, <.001-.015). Furthermore, increased myocardial FDG uptake was observed in patients imaged 1-30, 31-60, 61-120, and 121-180 days after their second vaccination (median SUVmax range, 4.6-5.1 [IQR: 2.9-8.6]) and increased ipsilateral axillary uptake was observed in patients imaged 1-30, 31-60, 61-120 days after their 2nd vaccination (median SUVmax range, 1.5-2.0 [IQR: 1.2-3.4]) compared to the nonvaccinated patients (P range, <.001-<.001).

Conclusion

Compared to nonvaccinated patients, asymptomatic patients who received their 2nd vaccination 1-180 days prior to imaging showed increased myocardial FDG uptake on PET/CT.

 

maineman » 02 Oct 2023, 8:07 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 8:07 pm

I can support the fact that my alma mater is a hell of a lot more highly rated and regarded than your cult school.

You wouldn't have qualified to attend my schools.  They didn't let people with Room Temp IQ in. 
Ever. 
 

golfboy » 02 Oct 2023, 8:41 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 8:41 pm

You wouldn't have qualified to attend my schools.  They didn't let people with Room Temp IQ in. 
Ever.

           

Loma Linda Medical School

It's right up there in the pantheon of America's finest institutions of higher learning.

Don't believe me, just ask Doctor Golfboi, distinguished alumnus. He's got the data!!!  

no.  really.

   

 

maineman » 02 Oct 2023, 8:05 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 8:05 pm

and I wish good luck, and good health to the both of us!

If it interests you, there is an editorial in the same journal by another MD/PhD, David A. Bluemke. He has published extensively (more than 600 papers peer reviewed) and has been cited more than 175,000 times by his peers. That is a quite respectable CV.

He said the following in his editorial:

Vaccine manufacturers are aware of the adverse effects of mRNA vaccines. These adverse effects lead to vaccine hesitancy. The study results by Nakahara et al suggest that mild asymptomatic myocardial inflammation could be more common than we ever expected. This in turn would support a hypothesis of more severe systemic inflammation related to mRNA vaccination in some patients who present with symptoma-c myocarditis.

He goes on to say that most of these cases are quickly treatable. He isn't saying that the sky is falling - nor does Nakahara. They're just letting you know that you were very likely damaged in SOME measure and that you were lied to by the media, pharma, and government. 

https://www.scimagojr.com/journalsearch ... 64&tip=sid

 
 

golfboy » 02 Oct 2023, 8:41 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 8:41 pm

You wouldn't have qualified to attend my schools.  They didn't let people with Room Temp IQ in. 
Ever.

why don't you tell us all about my father's real estate holdings in Northern Maine?  

maineman » 02 Oct 2023, 8:57 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 8:57 pm

           

Loma Linda Medical School

It's right up there in the pantheon of America's finest institutions of higher learning.

Don't believe me, just ask Doctor Golfboi, distinguished alumnus. He's got the data!!!  

no.  really.

 

The people who wrote the papers I gave you belong to a multitude of credible associations and are in many cases active at a high level withn those associations. They went to excellent schools and have quite distinguished careers. 

They found, and they reported, that the vax causes myocarditis - full stop. 
 

maineman » 02 Oct 2023, 8:57 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 8:57 pm

           

Loma Linda Medical School

It's right up there in the pantheon of America's finest institutions of higher learning.

Don't believe me, just ask Doctor Golfboi, distinguished alumnus. He's got the data!!!  

no.  really.

 

Imagine the stupidity of someone ridiculing a highly touted medical school, that he didn't even know existed, because he's got a Room Temp IQ. 
mainbitch always resorts to ridiculing things he doesn't understand. 
 

maineman » 02 Oct 2023, 8:59 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 8:59 pm

why don't you tell us all about my father's real estate holdings in Northern Maine?

I'll take this one. 

He owns a strip mall in Grand Sault and is having difficulties with one of his tenants who owns a pizzeria. He also has a small self-storage facility, and a yard that he leases to a gravel concern.

What else would you like to know?
 

golfboy » 02 Oct 2023, 9:02 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 9:02 pm

Imagine the stupidity of someone ridiculing a highly touted medical school, that he didn't even know existed, because he's got a Room Temp IQ. 
mainbitch always resorts to ridiculing things he doesn't understand.

I rather agree. Attacking the source is most often a sign of flailing and desperation. 
 

golfboy » 02 Oct 2023, 9:02 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 9:02 pm

Imagine the stupidity of someone ridiculing a highly touted medical school, that he didn't even know existed, because he's got a Room Temp IQ. 
mainbitch always resorts to ridiculing things he doesn't understand.

I understand that your love of your alma mater is strong.  It's a second-tier medical school.  Claiming that it is tougher to get into LLMS than it is to USNA is pretty funny... in a pathetic sort of way.

Cannonpointer » 02 Oct 2023, 9:03 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 9:03 pm

I'll take this one. 

He owns a strip mall in Grand Sault and is having difficulties with one of his tenants who owns a pizzeria. He also has a small self-storage facility, and a yard that he leases to a gravel concern.

What else would you like to know?

You're as good at real estate fiction as golfboy.  But your tongue-in-cheek humor is, in many cases, actually funny.    
His?  not so much.

Cannonpointer » 02 Oct 2023, 8:59 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 8:59 pm

The people who wrote the papers I gave you belong to a multitude of credible associations and are in many cases active at a high level withn those associations. They went to excellent schools and have quite distinguished careers. 

They found, and they reported, that the vax causes myocarditis - full stop.

Then I hope I dodge that bullet.

golfboy » 02 Oct 2023, 9:02 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 9:02 pm

Imagine the stupidity of someone ridiculing a highly touted medical school, that he didn't even know existed, because he's got a Room Temp IQ. 
mainbitch always resorts to ridiculing things he doesn't understand.

https://www.onlinecollege.org/10-most-p ... the-world/

https://www.usnews.com/education/best-g ... loma+linda

#470.  high praise.  
 

maineman » 02 Oct 2023, 9:32 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 9:32 pm

You're as good at real estate fiction as golfboy.  But your tongue-in-cheek humor is, in many cases, actually funny.    
His?  not so much.

Oh, he funny. 

But me you laugh with. 
 

Cannonpointer » 02 Oct 2023, 9:59 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 9:59 pm

Oh, he funny. 

But me you laugh with.

he's funny.....like the smell of rancid meat can be called "funny".

You are absolutely correct in your second statement.
 

maineman » 02 Oct 2023, 9:33 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 9:33 pm

Then I hope I dodge that bullet.

It was my hope that you would read that paper. 

A bit more rigor, and you'd have dodged that bullet WITHOUT counting on luck. 

Mind, that particular paper was not available, as the damage had not yet been done to the victims of the clot shot. But if there had been more damned rigor in your game, you would never have become a laboratory animal. Likewise, had you more rigor in your game, you'd not have defended a bad decision with bad evidence. EVERYONE makes mistakes. But those who admit their mistakes breathe the rarified air that is found outside the bell curve.

You allowed professional prostitutes to gull you on the vaccine. Mouthpieces for pharma, one and all. 

Remarkably, even though trump has vociferously defended the vax, pretended to take the vax, and absolutely earned credit (meaning BLAME) for the speed at which it became available forced on the weak and embraced by the stupid, it is mostly MAGA types who refuse it, and, incredibly, it is the people who hate trump most that ballyhoo it and have made its consumption a religious artifact. 

Me, I just don't use any patent medicines at all, ever - so the decision was just a part of my lifestyle. I eat organic and supplement rigorously and won the genetic lottery. I know how to lay hands on a dozen different anti-virals that are effective against corona viruses. Most Americans do - they just don't make the connections.

The research I did on the vax was in response to the left politicizing medicine - just as the research I did during the Ebola scare was in response to the RIGHT politicizing medicine. 

I called them *** for politicizing and I call the left *** for it. My standards don't change much. The "teams" just shift from side to side. I remember when the REPUBLICANS were globalists and neocons and pro-wall street, and the DEMOCRATS were nationalists and protectionists and anti-war. Hell, it wasn't that long ago. 
 
 

maineman » 02 Oct 2023, 10:01 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 10:01 pm

he's funny.....like the smell of rancid meat can be called "funny".

You are absolutely correct in your second statement.

Him you laugh at.
 
 

Cannonpointer » 02 Oct 2023, 10:13 pm » wrote: ↑

02 Oct 2023, 10:13 pm

It was my hope that you would read that paper. 

A bit more rigor, and you'd have dodged that bullet WITHOUT counting on luck. 

Mind, that particular paper was not available, as the damage had not yet been done to the victims of the clot shot. But if there had been more damned rigor in your game, you would never have become a laboratory animal. Likewise, had you more rigor in your game, you'd not have defended a bad decision with bad evidence. EVERYONE makes mistakes. But those who admit their mistakes breathe the rarified air that is found outside the bell curve.

You allowed professional prostitutes to gull you on the vaccine. Mouthpieces for pharma, one and all. 

Remarkably, even though trump has vociferously defended the vax, pretended to take the vax, and absolutely earned credit (meaning BLAME) for the speed at which it became available forced on the weak and embraced by the stupid, it is mostly MAGA types who refuse it, and, incredibly, it is the people who hate trump most that ballyhoo it and have made its consumption a religious artifact. 

Me, I just don't use any patent medicines at all, ever - so the decision was just a part of my lifestyle. I eat organic and supplement rigorously and won the genetic lottery. I know how to lay hands on a dozen different anti-virals that are effective against corona viruses. Most Americans do - they just don't make the connections.

The research I did on the vax was in response to the left politicizing medicine - just as the research I did during the Ebola scare was in response to the RIGHT politicizing medicine. 

I called them *** for politicizing and I call the left *** for it. My standards don't change much. The "teams" just shift from side to side. I remember when the REPUBLICANS were globalists and neocons and pro-wall street, and the DEMOCRATS were nationalists and protectionists and anti-war. Hell, it wasn't that long ago.

I will admit that I admire your rigor and your willingness to stand alone on the ramparts.  Seriously.