ADVERTISEMENT

According to ESPN, he took a shoulder to the chest and went into cardiac arrest...

But WHEN was the peer reviewed study retracted??? Was it Dr. McCullough's critique that helped fuel the retraction???
It was retracted in May of 2022, so no, but really good attempt here. Here's some more information on why it was retracted:

The focus of the paper is on a critically important public health issue. As such, it is essential that the presentation be accurate and balanced. Additional external review of this paper following publication concluded that it demonstrates inappropriate bias in multiple ways.
The use of key terminology, specifically the key terms “inoculation” and “vaccination” diverges from common use and are incorrect, indicating clear evidence of bias.
Publicly available data from the United States Center for Disease Control (U.S. CDC) were concluded by the external reviewers to be misinterpreted to make the erroneous conclusion that the vast majority of reported deaths due to COVID-19 are actually due to other comorbidities. Such an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation are unacceptable.
Want to stop bullshitting now? Of course not.

Your offering above regarding the retraction only further bolsters what some of us were trying to tell you all long ago, when you thought such peer reviewed studies were iron-clad FaCt.
This is, quite literally, the definition of confirmation bias.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reddypm and 00aubie
Don't start this shit where you respond multiple times to the same post again. It's not as if I'm going to take you seriously enough to read it anyway.

You probably didn't notice, but I replied to your different points separately. Isn't that what a debate and/or intelligent discourse SHOULD be??? Someone being respectful enough, and considerate enough to respond to each key point? Can you have mature, productive discourse otherwise???

Look folks. He's now on their routine of saying that they "won't read the posts", or "didn't read it" etc., (LOL!). That is the clearest sign that the person you are debating with has NOTHING, and is throwing a surrender cobra in words. You want to debate, but will not, or can not respond to each point with a solid counter argument. I rest my case your honor.
 
I've used the fact that he was so high up, so published and super respected for many years as proof to support the wrong that was done during the pandemic. No one had a problem with him until he gave his uber qualified opinion that went against the narrative.

He is a doctor that was FAR more published, had FAR more achievements than most doctors, and @DM8 and your crew has repeatedly said that if a doctor offers ANY opinion, it must be true and that we should automatically accept it. So why the difference for this well respected, high achieving doctor who I believe headed the cardiology department for the Baylor medical system. Things that make smart people go hmmmm.

Lastly, I've never bought into any of the anti-vaxx quackery. I've said many times that me and my family have taken pretty much every vaccine that's out there. However, there ARE very key distinctions and differences between this new/novel treatment and previous vaccines. In addition, I did NOT start the silly pissing match that took place in that thread. I clearly sat it out, and you are a blazing hypocrite for not being fair and calling out your buddies who clearly DID run all around that thread swinging at anything that moved. If you were genuinely concerned about Damar Hamlin, you'd have certainly called them on their behavior.
What happened to giving us some "context" about the bioterrorism claim? No comments yet on Baylor's restraining order (although you still cite his credentials there), I see.

Normal folks were concerned enough to hope/pray that Damar Hamiln would keep fighting and survive. You, on the other hand, saw an opportunity to continue spreading your batshit about the covid vaccine. You didn't even witness what transpired... just dove right into the deep end of lunatic shitposting.

Again, it's sick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DM8
That’s a pretty damning “I believe” without having at least a couple verifiable examples to share and discuss. But thanks for the links.

If you go through those links, I believe you'll clearly find some "verifiable examples", so your point is moot. Please share the ones that you feel are solid. I'd like to know your opinion on them.

Also, that was only one minor point among several that established what I truly believe to be an important, and truthful overall and general key point. Please don't get caught up in the minutia and end up missing the forest for the trees.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 00aubie
You probably didn't notice, but I replied to your different points separately. Isn't that what a debate and/or intelligent discourse SHOULD be??? Someone being respectful enough, and considerate enough to respond to each key point? Can you have mature, productive discourse otherwise???

Look folks. He's now on their routine of saying that they "won't read the posts", or "didn't read it" etc., (LOL!). That is the clearest sign that the person you are debating with has NOTHING, and is throwing a surrender cobra in words. You want to debate, but will not, or can not respond to each point with a solid counter argument. I rest my case your honor.
I debate peers who I respect. You meet neither qualification. Remember that football you keep trying to spike?

You exist solely for the purposes of mockery and derision for spreading trash that could harm Auburn people and God knows who else around the bowels of the internet. Let's be clear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DM8
If you go through those links, I believe you'll clearly find some "verifiable examples", so your point is moot. Please share the ones that you feel are solid. I'd like to know your opinion on them.

Also, that was only one minor point among several that established what I truly believe to be an important, and truthful overall and general key point. Please don't get caught up in the minutia and end up missing the forest for the trees.
The intellectual laziness to shotgun blast a bunch of links and expect people to dig through them to verify a claim YOU made is something else. And the gall to follow it up with, "so your point is moot"... good lowered.
 
If you go through those links, I believe you'll clearly find some "verifiable examples", so your point is moot. Please share the ones that you feel are solid. I'd like to know your opinion on them.

Also, that was only one minor point among several that established what I truly believe to be an important, and truthful overall and general key point. Please don't get caught up in the minutia and end up missing the forest for the trees.
I asked about one minor point. If you don’t like those minor points, stop trying to sneak them in your diatribes. It’s a chickenshit excuse and a childish way to avoid addressing your accusations.
 
It was retracted in May of 2022, so no, but really good attempt here. Here's some more information on why it was retracted:

The focus of the paper is on a critically important public health issue. As such, it is essential that the presentation be accurate and balanced. Additional external review of this paper following publication concluded that it demonstrates inappropriate bias in multiple ways.
The use of key terminology, specifically the key terms “inoculation” and “vaccination” diverges from common use and are incorrect, indicating clear evidence of bias.​
Publicly available data from the United States Center for Disease Control (U.S. CDC) were concluded by the external reviewers to be misinterpreted to make the erroneous conclusion that the vast majority of reported deaths due to COVID-19 are actually due to other comorbidities. Such an egregious misinterpretation and misrepresentation are unacceptable.
Want to stop bullshitting now? Of course not.


This is, quite literally, the definition of confirmation bias.

So Dr. McCullough made his critique/comments of the study much earlier, (and was roundly attacked for them, correct?). Now, significantly later in May of this past year, the study was indeed retracted, meaning that it indeed had issues.

All of this seems to line up with what I've told you all MANY times throughout the pandemic debates. Someone makes a good point about deficits in a "peer reviewed study". The supporters rake them and challenge them to provide a peer reviewed study themselves that debunks the study that is pro-vaxx, full well knowing that all such studies are likely to be suppressed and/or don't exist at all, because most scientists, doctors and researchers were REFUSING to participate and review anything that went against the narrative, so they would not lose their careers and means of feeding their families.

That's rank dishonesty all the way around, but again, it only supports what I've said. If you go back and look at the debates, you'll find multiple instances where even peons such as myself, CLEARLY pointed out valid deficits in some of the baked "studies" presented by the pro-vaxx crowd, and it was automatically dismissed, but later, the article or study was quietly redacted, retracted or edited after the TRUTH could no longer be repressed.
 
So Dr. McCullough made his critique/comments of the study much earlier, (and was roundly attacked for them, correct?). Now, significantly later in May of this past year, the study was indeed retracted, meaning that it indeed had issues.

All of this seems to line up with what I've told you all MANY times throughout the pandemic debates. Someone makes a good point about deficits in a "peer reviewed study".
No, it doesn't. It lines up with the fact that the people you have relied upon for information are, in fact, not reliable sources of information (as decided by their professional peers). You don't get to use McCullough's referenced paper being retracted as evidence that we can't trust any peer-reviewed research, though it's plainly clear why you'd love to do that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: reddypm and DM8
What happened to giving us some "context" about the bioterrorism claim? No comments yet on Baylor's restraining order (although you still cite his credentials there), I see.

Normal folks were concerned enough to hope/pray that Damar Hamiln would keep fighting and survive. You, on the other hand, saw an opportunity to continue spreading your batshit about the covid vaccine. You didn't even witness what transpired... just dove right into the deep end of lunatic shitposting.

Again, it's sick.

You are out and out lying. Everyone is free to go over to PoReMu and see my innocuous post, AND the fact that I sat out the entire silly debate and respected the fact that the attention should have been on the young man.

I should have gotten more context and facts prior to rushing out and making a visceral, emotional post based on what my daughter, (who doesn't even follow football, but knows her father would be interested), told me. I did indeed make an ASSumption that he was just out there running along, and dropped, because that's what she told me. I will issue a mea culpa and say that I was wrong assuming that my daughter's information was accurate, without checking, but excuse me for wanting to rush out and discuss this with my Bunker fam. I turned on the T.V., saw them huddled up, and I believe heard an announcer say that "he just dropped", but again, it turned out that the moderate blow to the chest very well may have played the key role. Let's just hope he makes a full recovery, and that they find and report the true root cause.

That said, I clearly stayed out of the stupid fray, and didn't counter any of the stupidity Lil'man and Dumbo-octo were spewing.
 
You are out and out lying. Everyone is free to go over to PoReMu and see my innocuous post, AND the fact that I sat out the entire silly debate and respected the fact that the attention should have been on the young man.

I should have gotten more context and facts prior to rushing out and making a visceral, emotional post based on what my daughter, (who doesn't even follow football, but knows her father would be interested), told me. I did indeed make an ASSumption that he was just out there running along, and dropped, because that's what she told me. I will issue a mea culpa and say that I was wrong assuming that my daughter's information was accurate, without checking, but excuse me for wanting to rush out and discuss this with my Bunker fam. I turned on the T.V., saw them huddled up, and I believe heard an announcer say that "he just dropped", but again, it turned out that the moderate blow to the chest very well may have played the key role. Let's just hope he makes a full recovery, and that they find and report the true root cause.

That said, I clearly stayed out of the stupid fray, and didn't counter any of the stupidity Lil'man and Dumbo-octo were spewing.
Well there's the pious, sanctimonious pseudo-apology we've been asking for. Good for you for finally owning up to it, sort of.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DM8 and 00aubie
The intellectual laziness to shotgun blast a bunch of links and expect people to dig through them to verify a claim YOU made is something else. And the gall to follow it up with, "so your point is moot"... good lowered.

My man, I didn't make a claim. I clearly qualified my statement and said, "I believe". I assure you, that you, and the other few in your merry band, would indeed have feel better about the veracity of the links if THEY research them, themselves.

In the past, I've spent hundreds of hours all told, verifying, vouching, and presenting information, only to have folks not respond, say "I didn't read that crap" etc. At this point with all of the years I've interacted with this crew, I know WELL that how your gang reacts when they are presented with solid points that debunk something you all believe. Given that consistent deplorable and intellectually dishonest behavior, you do NOT have grounds to blame me for not wasting my time.
 
My man, I didn't make a claim. I clearly qualified my statement and said, "I believe". I assure you, that you, and the other few in your merry band, would indeed have feel better about the veracity of the links if THEY research them, themselves.

In the past, I've spent hundreds of hours all told, verifying, vouching, and presenting information, only to have folks not respond, say "I didn't read that crap" etc. At this point with all of the years I've interacted with this crew, I know WELL that how your gang reacts when they are presented with solid points that debunk something you all believe. Given that consistent deplorable and intellectually dishonest behavior, you do NOT have grounds to blame me for not wasting my time.
Your shamelessness knows no bounds.
 
You are out and out lying. Everyone is free to go over to PoReMu and see my innocuous post, AND the fact that I sat out the entire silly debate and respected the fact that the attention should have been on the young man.

I should have gotten more context and facts prior to rushing out and making a visceral, emotional post based on what my daughter, (who doesn't even follow football, but knows her father would be interested), told me. I did indeed make an ASSumption that he was just out there running along, and dropped, because that's what she told me. I will issue a mea culpa and say that I was wrong assuming that my daughter's information was accurate, without checking, but excuse me for wanting to rush out and discuss this with my Bunker fam. I turned on the T.V., saw them huddled up, and I believe heard an announcer say that "he just dropped", but again, it turned out that the moderate blow to the chest very well may have played the key role. Let's just hope he makes a full recovery, and that they find and report the true root cause.

That said, I clearly stayed out of the stupid fray, and didn't counter any of the stupidity Lil'man and Dumbo-octo were spewing.
And if he were "just out there running along..." that would have given you better justification to start in immediately with the vaccine batshittery?

Thank you for making my point for me.
 
Do you not see any irony in admitting that you don't know who he is, but accusing people who may be more familiar with his behavior of "attacking the messenger?"

You mention Baylor... were you aware that Baylor was successful in getting a restraining order against him? Is that normal? If you're going to cite Baylor as a credential, you should probably be aware of that.

Were you aware that he compared the vaccine to an "act of bioterrorism?" These are not exactly signs of sane behavior and might make one consider questioning the veracity of said "messenger." At least a little bit, right?

But let's be honest, you ultimately aren't concerned with the character of the messenger... that is far subordinate to locating anything from anywhere that will serve to reinforce your biases and narratives. Unfortunately, the advancement of said narratives, in this particular instance, has led some people to unnecessarily lose their lives... all under the guise of "asking questions" and "critical thought" by those ill-equipped to perform either.

Had you on ignore and didn't realize you were responding.

Still attacking messenger, not message. Still can't discuss without insults. Got it. Back on ignore - bye.
 
Don't pretend you care about research unless you believe it verifies your opinion

I routinely factor in information, research and opinions from all angles, sources and directions, before I arrive at my opinion, (or, my current best understanding as I like to say).

No honest person familiar with my posting over the past 23 years, can say that I don't put forth great effort to be objective, balanced and fair, prior to arriving at a conclusion. My entire mantra is trying to get folks to be objective, fair and balanced.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: hsvtgr and 00aubie
Had you on ignore and didn't realize you were responding.

Still attacking messenger, not message. Still can't discuss without insults. Got it. Back on ignore - bye.
Stop being a snowflake.
 
Also, whose opinion on the medical impacts of the new vaccines do you feel are more qualified? Yours, or those of subject matter experts such as Dr. Peter McCullough's or Dr. Malone's???

McCullough once testified before a senate committee that covid cannot be spread by a person who isn't showing symptoms.
 
No, it doesn't. It lines up with the fact that the people you have relied upon for information are, in fact, not reliable sources of information (as decided by their professional peers). You don't get to use McCullough's referenced paper being retracted as evidence that we can't trust any peer-reviewed research, though it's plainly clear why you'd love to do that.

LOL! Name a few of the people I've "relied on" over the past few years of these Covid debate??? Dis ought'a be guid (sic).
 
I’m enjoying watching @au4life_rz get absolutely abused but I’m amazed anybody reads his posts at this point. Paragraphs and paragraphs of nothing. Lol

Goodness gracious, you're going to have me quoting Gunna again. This might be one that shuts you down completely so that you won't even respond.

Simple question for you. Do you read my posts???
 
Had you on ignore and didn't realize you were responding.

Still attacking messenger, not message. Still can't discuss without insults. Got it. Back on ignore - bye.
Yep... nothing substantive here.

I don't recall ever interacting with you... but as you wish. Farewell, cuck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DM8
Goodness gracious, you're going to have me quoting Gunna again. This might be one that shuts you down completely so that you won't even respond.

Simple question for you. Do you read my posts???
You’re getting abused. It’s sad at this point.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT