Gunboards Forums banner

21 - 40 of 46 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
deleted and added to 1st post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
@davidsog

You cite 5165 deaths in cases where there is a covid-19 vaccine.

What would be the expected base rate deaths in that population without the vaccine?

Without knowing the base rate, an isolated statistic cannot be properly evaluated.

Also, VAERS does not require that causality be established in order to submit a report.


So no, not 5K deaths from the vax.

Anyways we'll find out if the judge wrote a sturdy opinion or not in the appeal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
Considering that VAERS report would have to be off by a factor of 20 to be less than mass shootings in California I'd say the judge's statement is pretty safe.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
@davidsog

You cite 5165 deaths in cases where there is a covid-19 vaccine.

What would be the expected base rate deaths in that population without the vaccine?

Without knowing the base rate, an isolated statistic cannot be properly evaluated.

Also, VAERS does not require that causality be established in order to submit a report.


So no, not 5K deaths from the vax.

Anyways we'll find out if the judge wrote a sturdy opinion or not in the appeal.


Ahh the Neo-Communist fact checkers! Stalin, Mao, and Goebbels loved them. Great Example of how facts are used by Marxist/Socialist to drive a narrative instead of the narrative being driven by the fact.

Same set of facts...very different conclusions.

VAERS has a separate mission from the CDC and is the agency charged with monitoring the safety of vaccines. The deaths are nothing more than reportable incidents and until those incidents are investigated, there is little meaning attached outside of the fact the vaccine was administered and the individual died under circumstances that were reportable to VAERS.

That does not change the facts more people have died receiving the Covid-19 vaccine than in mass shootings in California.

It is a statement that puts into stark contrast the absurdity of the draconian gun laws in California quite nicely and factually.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Str8pull

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
@davidsog

It's sad to see the vaccine, a product of science, evaluated scientifically, succumb to beliefs that are decidedly not scientific in nature.

"died receiving the Covid-19 vaccine" is an either meaningless or deliberately misleading statement.

Here's another:

"more people die after purchasing red automobiles than yellow ones".

Getting off subject however from the point of the thread, which is a remarkable decision in Federal Court, with significant implications for firearms laws in California and the rest of the country. We will all watch closely how it fares on appeal.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
"died receiving the Covid-19 vaccine" is an either meaningless or deliberately misleading statement.
No, that is an emotional spin upon a fact. VAERS collects reportable events related to vaccinations. They have received 5165 reportable events resulting in death.

That is just a fact.

I do not think it will fare well in the end at all. Might be a short term victory depending on if the State of California can get it before a Neo-communist Critical Race Theory trained judge that was pushed thru the system by that faction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
No, that is an emotional spin upon a fact. VAERS collects reportable events related to vaccinations. They have received 5165 reportable events resulting in death.

That is just a fact.

I do not think it will fare well in the end at all. Might be a short term victory depending on if the State of California can get it before a Neo-communist Critical Race Theory trained judge that was pushed thru the system by that faction.
What is also a fact is that those reports do not have causality associated with them. It's a reporting system, and those cases are not vetted.

In this country, as of mid-May there were 3 possible deaths causally associated with J&J, and none from Moderna/Pfizer mRNA vaccines.

You're arguing that it doesn't matter if causality is established or not?

If not, then stay away from white cars, because more people die after buying white cars than any other color. Since causality doesn't matter.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
What is also a fact is that those reports do not have causality associated with them. It's a reporting system, and those cases are not vetted.

In this country, in May there were 3 possible deaths causally associated with J&J, and none from Moderna/Pfizer mRNA vaccines.

You're arguing that it doesn't matter if causality is established or not?

If not, then stay away from white cars, because more people die after buying white cars than any other color. Since causality doesn't matter.
Great example of how Neo-Communist logic traps has twisted our thinking and requires emotional based conclusion. Causality is not answered by the single fact highlighted by VAERS reporting of deaths or in the questionable example of car coloration.

Causality has not been answered at all yet one pretends to own that causality in the absence of further fact assuming that causality supports that sides position.

The statement:

Here's another:

"more people die after purchasing red automobiles than yellow ones".
Attempts to use a single fact to bring about a false conclusion of absurdity.

VAERS reporting comes from Doctors, Nurses, and other healthcare professionals and is a required to be submitted for significant events.
As a condition of a vaccine’s use under Emergency Use Authorization, the FDA requires healthcare professionals to report to VAERS certain adverse eventsexternal icon that occur after COVID-19 vaccination.

Now, factually anyone can report to VAERS:

However, anyone can submit a report to VAERSexternal icon, including patients, family members, healthcare providers, and vaccine manufacturers, even if it isn’t clear if the vaccine caused the health problem.
That does not detract from the fact VAERS is a reporting system for healthcare professionals to report significant events related to the vaccine.

Your logic:

Here's another:

"more people die after purchasing red automobiles than yellow ones".
Illustrates an isolated fact leading to a false conclusion. Making a conclusion on the safety of a vehicle based upon color is an absurdity. But that is not the whole picture but is instead a cherry picked fact in isolation being used to lead the unwitting to a false conclusion.

Correctly it should be the statement, "more people die after purchasing red automobiles than yellow ones according to doctors, healthcare professionals, mechanical engineers, mechanics, and public safety professionals." if you want to make an analogy to VAERS reporting and the Judges statement in the California ruling. You are correct that causality is not examined or concluded.

However the fact industry and healthcare professionals are the ones making the statement certainly adds weight moving the statement about the color of cars to a position that reasonably bears investigation into that causality. Now, the analogy about cars had very little to do with the actual situation and is a very poor analogy.

Someone pretending to own causality in the absence of fact and using that false logic to bludgeon into silence opposition is a Marxist tactic used by todays Neo-Communist.

None of this has any bearing whatsoever upon the FACT Vaccine related deaths as reported by VAERS are many times more numerous than deaths by mass shootings in California caused by "assault weapons" under California law.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Str8pull

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
@davidsog

"Does causality matter?" is a really simple question with a really simple answer: "yes".

Again, a VAERS entry is not a proven connection, just a possible one. VAERS exists as a starting point, not a finish line.

Can you find data on confirmed deaths due to a bad vax reaction?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,033 Posts
"Does causality matter?" is a really simple question with a really simple answer: "yes".
Do you own that causality? Show the results of the investigation that shows deaths were not due to bad vax reaction? You cannot and neither can I because you are using false logic based upon a single fact to lead to a conclusion you cannot support. No facts means No facts. It does not mean replace absence of fact with fantasy conclusions.

You have a hypothesis based upon a single fact. That means you have a tentative explanation for an observation, an assumption that bears further investigation.

In the question of vaccines causality is important. One has to wonder why the State of California is not more concerned with determining that causality instead of wasting its time in court attempting to deprive the law abiding of their constitutional rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Str8pull

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,039 Posts
Typical WWgunsguy, loses the argument that the judge is wrong and shifts immediately into another argument, the numbers are wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
@David Murvihill

Reread the thread. Seriously.

I pointed out that the judge made a specious reference to vaccine safety in his opinion and I expressed the hope that such blundering didn't undermine his position on appeal.

The judge brought up the vax. Strange subject for a firearms opinion? I agree.

@davidsog

Given that the FDA continues to certify that the vaccine manufacturers are meeting their burden of proof as regards to safety, an argument to the contrary also has a burden to meet. It's that simple. Now if people choose to misunderstand the vaccine safety picture as a basis for their own decision-making, then that is their right, but it doesn't make their claims scientifically accurate.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,550 Posts
In Australia, there have been 2 possible connected deaths from some 3.4m doses, mainly Astrazeneca. ABC news today.
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
32,343 Posts
California Attorney General is appealing this to the 9th Circuit

Sent from my SM-T820 using Tapatalk
 

·
Silver Bullet member
Joined
·
32,343 Posts
AG Bonta had most of the 30-day stay to wait and see if the en banc 9th Circut would side with Benitez. Yes, it would be political suicide to not appeal, however, it puts the rest of the country's state and local AWBs in Jeopardy.

 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
96,302 Posts
@David Murvihill

Reread the thread. Seriously.

I pointed out that the judge made a specious reference to vaccine safety in his opinion and I expressed the hope that such blundering didn't undermine his position on appeal.

The judge brought up the vax. Strange subject for a firearms opinion? I agree.

@davidsog

Given that the FDA continues to certify that the vaccine manufacturers are meeting their burden of proof as regards to safety, an argument to the contrary also has a burden to meet. It's that simple. Now if people choose to misunderstand the vaccine safety picture as a basis for their own decision-making, then that is their right, but it doesn't make their claims scientifically accurate.

I'm NOT an attorney these days, but I am a graduate of law school and was admitted to practice in Texas, US District Court for Eastern District of Texas and Court of Military Appeals - when I closed my office and retired I resigned from the Bar so ain't a lawyer these days. But - i am educated in the profession. That education and the 30+ years I spent in practice impacts my comment: No, the judge's comments will NOT impact the validity of his decision. It is what is known as "dicta" and legally meaningless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
918 Posts
@Clyde

Good to know that it's legally meaningless, but it's in there nonetheless, and it's wrong. If I was on the losing end of that case and felt like appealing, then I might consider that sloppy-but-meaningless prose as a sign that I should look for similar sloppiness in those parts of the opinion that carry legal weight.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member and Noted Curmudgeon
Joined
·
96,302 Posts
@Clyde

Good to know that it's legally meaningless, but it's in there nonetheless, and it's wrong. If I was on the losing end of that case and felt like appealing, then I might consider that sloppy-but-meaningless prose as a sign that I should look for similar sloppiness in those parts of the opinion that carry legal weight.
Be a mistake to mention it in your appellate brief. Dicta, including foolish dicta, is quite common in judicial opinions. Appellate courts simply ignore it, or if cited by a party, dismiss it as "mere dicta". And are often irritated by litigants who cite it so that they have to comment. It is best to NOT do things that aggravate judges. They sometimes rule against you...
 
21 - 40 of 46 Posts
Top