pennstate10

Commentary on this topic from another well known “libtard” source. Forbes magazine. https://www.forbes.com/sites/omerawan/2025/12/12/the-problems-with-the-fda-claims-that-the-covid-19-vaccine-killed-10-kids/ Cliff notes. The true number, from FDA sources, was between zero and seven. Question: What were the ages of the individuals? Sex? Interval between vaccine and death? Comorbidities? Clinical findings? Autopsy results? Who reviewed these cases, and what was her/his level of expertise? We know none of this data, because the insane clown posse committed to “radical transparency” has released none of it, although this memo was widely distributed over 2 weeks ago. Elect a clown; expect a circus.

Its not necessarily bad science, but simply science that is limited by its design. Design was observational study. Whenever you read about any study, in any medical journal, think about the design. For instance, lets say that your hypothesis is that snow shoveling causes fatal heart attacks. Here are 4 study designs, in order of weakest to strongest. 1) Case report. a doc publishes a report that some dude was shoveling snow, had a hear attack, and died. No controls. 2) Case series. A doc publishes that he saw 10 patients in the ER over the last 3 years who were shoveling snow when they developed a heart attack. No controls. 3) Case control. A doc studies hear attack patients who are in the hospital, and asks them when they last shoveled snow. The shovers are the cases, non shovelers are the controls. 4) Cohort study. Men choose either to be shovlers, or hire a neighbor kid, and never touch a shovel. You then follow these men for months to years, and see if the shovelers have more heart attacks. Advantage is this is now prospective, with controls. Disadvantage is that men choose which group they are in. Maybe younger healthier guys are mostly shovelers, and older sickly guys choose to be non-shovelers. 5) Randomized experiment. Men are randomly placed into groups where they either shovel or dont. Conceptually, this is the best experimental design. Obviously, this type of design is often unethical or not feasible for other reasons. And these are often very costly studies. The best designs for vaccines are this type of design, where one group gets the vaccine, the other group gets a placebo, and the groups are chosen randomly. This was the design for the landmark mRNA vaccines, involving ~ 30K volunteers, and published in the NEJM. The linked study above is an observational study. This is a type of case control, suboptimal as the numbers of cases and controls are far different. These are generally considered weak evidence in the medical community, and usually more of a hypothesis generating study, as opposed to a definitive study.

I cant believe people believe this nonsense. RFKJ uses big words, sometimes with true medical meanings, but he uses them incorrectly. Antigenic shift and antigenic drift are both meaningful medical terms. RFKJ uses them incorrectly. Yet another batsht crazy statement. A few docs are crooks, ergo, ipso facto, QED, all docs are crooks.

Ah, yeah, I should’ve figured that out. Having roots in Pennsylvania, I’ve followed the Eagles for years. Jim Johnson (rip) was truly one of the best DC of his generation.

If he had a pleural effusion, they wouldn’t be draining it in the locker room. He would be in a hospital with IR. Maybe he was trying to numb a cracked rib, although I’m not sure why hey would do that for practice.

As much as I dont like him, I think Jimmy Johnson belongs in the HOF as a head coach. His Dallas teams were the best teams of the decade. And he had some success in Miami.

Huh. here is an example of how batsht crazy and out of touch Trumps legal teams are. in a typical year, nationwide, federal grand juries rejected indictments only 5 times. Out of 165,000 cases. These rejections are rare. DOJ has failed to obtain a fed grand jury indictment on Letitia James twice in the past month!! Let’s simply face facts. Trump is trying to use his corrupted DOJ to indict enemies and perceived enemies. Full stop. And failing because of honest Americans serving on grand juries. Or because of stunningly incompetent attorneys. Or both.

Nah, I think they’ll activate Darius slay.

Bills are much better at home than in road. Divisiion is a big deal, I think.

OK dude we got it. You like AI. But you apparently haven’t realized AI simply makes things up at times.

Question. Did Trump state that he had “no problem” in releasing the second boat strike video. Yes or no. Question. Did Trump deny saying that a few days later, while insulting the character of the reporter who asked the question? Yes or no.

Speaking of yourself in the third person is sort of a sign of narcissism.

Semantics my friend. of course the SC didn’t issue a ruling stating that “the president is above the law”. Rather they gave him extraordinarily broad (and vague) immunity, which effectively places the president above the law. Since most of us here are Bills fans, here is an analogy. You might say that Josh Allen running fo a first down with about 1:15 left in last weeks game ended the game. In actuality, that run didn’t end the game. The game ended when the clock read 0:00. However, his run effectively ended the game. Make sense ?

Allen has 12 rush TD this year. Just curious if you’re making these stats up or you can’t read.

So, in context, it would seem like Mike Davis is a serious conservative, Republican. Right? Anyone want to argue that? Now lets consider his first sentence. "This is stunning a Supreme Court justice: 1. Actually thinks we must be ruled by unelected, unaccountable (leftwing) "experts"" Hmmm....lets think this through. There are 3 branches of government, in the US, right? Executive, Legislative, Judicial. Question. Which one of these three is unelected and unaccountable? Answer: The batsht crazy judicial branch, filled with professional grade grifters (Thomas, Alito), who have ruled that the president is above the law. I'm an old guy. The current Supreme Court is, by far, the worst collection of "justices" (and i use that word loosely) i have ever seen. That ruling, to say the president is above the law, is absolutely stunning. Until that point, I had believed that the justices were honorable. Maybe more conservative or liberal, but honorable. 100% chance that ruling is either reversed, or we degenerate into a dictatorship. Those are the only two choices. And for what its worth, I agree that KBJ was a DEI hire. In my opinion, she wasnt the most qualified justice in the US to be promoted. She was the most qualified black woman. I dont think thats right; choosing a Supreme Court justice from ~5% of the US population. I also dont think it right for clear liar grifters (Thomas, Alito) to remain on the court after they've demonstrated their dishonesty..