State trooper who told off Inslee over vaccine mandate dies from COVID

Those objecting to mandates are not doing do out of fear of needles. Perhaps they have a knowledge of history and know what tolerating government abuse of power and overreach leads to.

We can also make the case that early retirement increases the risk of early death. Forcing early retirement for refusing this inferior pharma product is not from a position of concern for the worker.

 

You really don't have a clue what peer-review means. That’s why no one but you is talking about “peer reviewing” actual deaths, or actual infections or whatever, and saying they didn’t happen. So please, get that nonsensical idea out of your head once and for all.

Further, peer reviews are most certainly NOT asked “to come to the same conclusions based on the same data”. In fact, that's anathema to their purpose. Their purpose is to evaluate all aspects of a study - start to finish - to determine if it is set up in such a way that its findings and conclusions can be considered valid and reliable.

In other words, they evaluate the path taken to get the data, in order to asses the value of the data.This does NOT mean (in this case) that they are going to say that the infections did not occur, or change the number of infections that occurred, or whatever, because of course they did occur. What is at issue is the value of that data. If it is of poor value - due to a path riddled with potholes - then so too are the conclusions based on that data: they are not trustworthy and reliable.

As this particular study remains firmly in pre-print limbo land, with no sign of a release date, it is not trustworthy and reliable.

 

You're speed-reading again. Here's my sentence. As you can see, I didn't say they were isolated. "And of these" means part of the 32,430.

"32,430 were used for Group 1. And of these, the study's conclusions about infection and symptomatic infection
were based on only 257 and 199 records respectively."
​

And, it doesn't change the fact that 257 is a small number, nor the fact that the study is deeply flawed - hence still in pre-print.

​

 

Peer review is a process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It functions to encourage authors to meet the accepted high standards of their discipline and to control the dissemination of research data to ensure that unwarranted claims, unacceptable interpretations or personal views are not published without prior expert review.

It is provided to determine if scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound.

It is not applied to research of constant absolutes. EVER. Its now used as the lefts excuse to discharge any information they don't like because they don't even know what it is, They heard it on CNN and now its their newest excuse to regurgitate at will.

The study involves infected individuals who have, and have not, taken a vaccine Reinfection rates, and hospitalizations, of pre infected vs vaccinated
There is no unwarranted claims, interpretations, or personal bias in determining the following
You either have Covid or you do not have Covid,
You are either vaccinated or not vaccinated.
You are either hospitalized or not hospitalized
You are either Pre infected or never infected but vaccinated
You are either Dead or alive

There is NOTHING to be peer reviewed in those absolutes. NOTHING.

 

Those numbers were based on increased rate of infection, not the conclusions of the study.
The study was to determine pre infected vs vaccinated rates

The study, led by Tal Patalon and Sivan Gazit at KSM, the system’s research and innovation arm, found in two analyses that never-infected people who were vaccinated in January and February were, in June, July, and the first half of August, six to 13 times more likely to get infected than unvaccinated people who were previously infected with the coronavirus

In one analysis, comparing more than 32,000 people in the health system, the risk of developing symptomatic COVID-19 was 27 times higher among the vaccinated, and the risk of hospitalization eight times higher.

You don't get to use the excuse that only 257 people were represented in both analyses. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
And you can't provide ANY information where this study is flawed in any way. Or you would have.

In fact, I noticed you didn't even include the other findings in their own studies that supported the findings in Israel that I provided.

 

There is absolutely no need to explain to me what peer reviews are - that's why I already explained them to you, in my own words, because unlike you, I didn't need to do a copy-paste. LOL

To illustrate, here are MY words: "Their purpose is to evaluate all aspects of a study - start to finish - to determine if it is set up in such a way that its findings and conclusions can be considered valid and reliable."

Here are the words from your copy-paste: "It is provided to determine if scientific manuscript is experimentally and ethically sound."

See? I already knew that.

Yes you are either dead or alive. And no, a peer review is not going to change the fact that a study found that a person was dead. There is no changing the fact that they are dead. And neither will a peer review change that.

That's why I said, "This does NOT mean (in this case) that they are going to say that the infections did not occur, or change the number of infections that occurred, or whatever, because of course they did occur."

Again, you REALLY need to slow down and digest what you read in my posts.

 

Care to think back to when I said that the study ranks people as follows:

#1 - previously infected and vaccinated
#2 - unvaccinated
#3 - vaccinated

I would have thought this made it patently obvious that I'm aware of the other findings, including the 27x one. Did you want all the actual numbers too?!

Oh I do get to use the 257, and that was the number in one analysis, not two. And it IS a small number. What's more, the conclusion is based on the numbers. That is ONE of the numbers on which the conclusion is based.

Flaws? Well, for starters, the fact that it is a records-based observational study, that there were no testing protocols, uncaptured asymptomatic cases, confounding by behavioral factors, confounding by likelihood of vaccination due to health status, timings, etc.

 

Oh, you explained it alright,

You tried to claim that if something is a study, than it falls under the parameter of being peer reviewed.
It doesn't.
In the Israel study there is nothing to be interpreted. Their data is provided by absolutes, not conclusions arrived at by hypothesis that needs a second or third eye to determine if their hypothesis isn't swayed by bias or interpretation.

You were the one who tried to claim the Israel study would be peer reviewed. Not me.

All you did was try and convolute the word study into everything ever studied. It doesn't work that way. Their are hundreds of millions of studies that do not have peer reviews meaning, you got this idea in your head, since it was a study, it must be peer reviewed to be authentic?
Which is absolute nonsense
Which defines the fact you didn't know what peer reviewed is actually used for.

Sound familiar????

There is NEVER going to be a peer review on the Israel study, It was you who introduced that theme, not me. By claiming this is not peer reviewed research you were stating its credibility factor as not having a peer reviewed status.

WRONG
The purpose of a peer review is to determine if a prospective theory or hypothesis is based on sound formula and not arrived at by bias or false interpretation of data.

 

Now you're just making up nonsense. Nothing you provided would have anything to do with the facts of the study. NOTHING
Most likely why there isn't a single claim out there to support those claims trying to disparage the results of what they found.
You are just reaching into thin air because you have nothing else to use. You have NO CLUE what they did or did not do. You're just guessing now
No testing protocols? How the f*** did they determine if someone has the virus or not?

When you find the study that has determined their findings are not valid due to no testing protocols, uncaptured asymptomatic cases, confounding by behavioral factors, confounding by likelihood of vaccination due to health status, timings, you let us know.
Until then its just made up BS.

 

Errr ... because you in your post (140) of this thread stated. And I quote 'Do lefties have to celebrate the death of every police officer?' Memory issues?

But disregarding the above. His career choice was not the key takeaway from the original post anyway. The whole point was that the person concerned chose quit his job rather than be forced to vaccinate. And then died from the disease the vaccine would have protected him from! Not the fact the career concerned was law enforcement!

Of course unless he followed all the other hygiene protocols like masking etc there's a chance he may still have got COVID (depending on the variant) but he wouldn't have died from it. The stats on that are overwhelming, barring serous co-morbidities (unlikely in his case) he would still be alive and his family, friends and community wouldn't have suffered the loss of someone they cared about.

 

Yes I'm claiming that studies are peer-reviewed, because they are. And I'm talking about medical/health/scientific studies like this one, not any study. Or were we suddenly talking about some other types of study? If someone writes a "study" on the differences between watercolors and oil paints, it's not going to be peer-reviewed. Who cares? But for studies that purport to have determined this or that in health, medicine, etc., they are submitted for review and marked as pre-prints so that everyone knows that thus far the study has not been evaluated by peer review and its conclusions are therefore are not yet considered trustworthy.

And it should be totally clear to you by now that "peer review" does not mean "interpretation". It means assessing the study to see if was conducted in such a way that its findings can be considered trustworthy. At that stage, it will be "published", not a "pre-print".

Do yourself a favor and visit medRxiv - https://www.medrxiv.org/

This is where people submit their studies for review. Thousands of them, on everything from addiction to urology. This is where YOUR study has been submitted. This is what it says at the top of YOUR study page:

"This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new
medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice."
​

If you click the "what does this mean" part, it takes you to this explanation of peer reviews. Hopefully this will get through to you so that you FINALLY get what peer reviews are.

"Before formal publication in a scholarly journal, scientific and medical articles are traditionally certified
by “peer review.” In this process, the journal’s editors take advice from various experts—called “referees”—
who have assessed the paper and may identify weaknesses in its assumptions, methods, and conclusions.
Typically a journal will only publish an article once the editors are satisfied that the authors have addressed
referees’ concerns and that the data presented support the conclusions drawn in the paper.

Because this process can be lengthy, authors use the medRxiv service to make their manuscripts available as
“preprints” before certification by peer review, allowing other scientists to see, discuss, and comment on the
findings immediately. Readers should therefore be aware that articles on medRxiv have not been finalized by
authors, might contain errors, and report information that has not yet been accepted or endorsed in
any way by the scientific or medical community.

We also urge journalists and other individuals who report on medical research to the general public to consider
this when discussing work that appears on medRxiv preprints and emphasize it has yet to be evaluated by
the medical community and the information presented may be erroneous.​

 

Well, we have no better expert on the forum (See Arizona Senate thread), so we should obviously believe you now...

 

Er, it doesn't work like that. It sits as a pre-print until it's certified by peer review. If not certified, it stays as a pre-print, so no need to show it isn't valid. Its status as a pre-print flags it as unvalidated.

Oh and those study flaws? Not made up. Those are limitations cited by the authors of the study, in the study LOL. And there are more that can be added to those.

 

dup

 

I forgot that was Condor. That explains why he hasn't actually read the study. Which explains why he doesn't think it's subject to peer review, even though it says so at the top of the page. And why he thinks it's shortcomings are made-up BS even though they're listed in the study LOL.

 

There is no pre print as this is not a study with undetermined factors that need to be explored, determined, or evaluated.
These are already determined facts being collected to show actual outcomes
And there is no (and will be no) peer review
And its also obvious you have no idea how peer reviews are used

Then you can link them. can't you.

 

Awww, Did that thread hurt your feelings. Two weeks later and you still can't get over it.
Sorry for your loss, lol

 

So what you're saying you thought everything they post is going to be published and/or peer reviewed?
Nonsense.

This study was done to verify the results of the Pfiser vaccine in the highest vaccinated country in the world to see what the results are.

This isn't being done for a medical publication and it isn't being done for a medical journal and nobody is preparing a manuscript so you can stop with all the fake word twisting trying to claim this is going to be a peer reviewed study.
It isn't
End of story
Nothing is the report claims its will be peer reviewed and nothing in the report claims its being done for any other reason than observing the results. And it isn't being published in medRxiv. As a matter of fact, all medRxiv did was reference the study that paralleled their own findings. This was NEVER PROVIDED to medRxiv by ANYONE. medRxiv decided to cite the story THEMSELVES.
You're just wasting your time trying to claim something that was never there trying to save face about your own misinterpretation as to what peer reviewed studies are.
Simple as that.

 

you speak for everyone that objects to mandates?

I said some, not all

"some people fear needles to the point of dying from a virus with a vaccine available"

which I said in reply to you saying

"Some people fear death to the point of never living."

 

Blah, blah, blah....why avoid answering the question?

 

No, he is dead because, almost certainly, some group of people created the sickness that killed him. The same sickness, that if we make it to 75 years old, is going to be our number one threat. Vaccinated or not. The same sickness that in our waning years, is going to take a significant portion of us out. Whatever mad scientists created this, they have dictated, in their hubris, how many of us, for who knows how many generations, will depart this world.

Any blame directed at anyone other than the above, is misplaced.

 

where did you read he was 75? he was 50

 

I'm talking about me and you. All of us. We are all going to get old.

 

yep, but if they come out with a anti-aging pill, sign me up

 

I've answered the question. I keep answering all your questions. You just don't like the answers.

I've already stated that a minority of both 'lefties' and 'righties' mock people dying of COVID and I've noted that in this thread the employment choice of the victim was not the key point being made. If you still think left wingers 'mock' police officers in general or their deaths in particular more often than far right groups you are simply wrong. (Cheer up, so far on this thread if nothing else you've also been consistent! Which is a positive, I guess?)

This is because the facts clearly show that right wing extremists are more than happy to confront, insult and in rare cases even instigate the deaths of Police officers. This is one of the few areas where extreme leftist and right wingers are in agreement. They both tend to regard Police officers as instruments of 'State oppression' (for doing their job) and are therefore happy to interfere with officers performing their duties and/or then heavily criticize them in the media/ on-line for doing so after the event. Do I really have to troll through endless BLM & DC riot media clips to prove this point?