I am generally curious as to whether your constant need to provoke debate with willful ignorance, is not genuine engagement but is a clever way to mix superciliousness and flawed reasoning, to feed a narcissistic validation loop.
Your latest
“The difference is that a vaccination is in someone’s medical records, but a COVID-19 infection is only recorded if they sought medical help, so it could be missed as a cause.”.
your argument is fundamentally flawed — because you are assuming the wrong type of data comparison.
You framed the issue as if the study compared:
• vaccinated people
versus
• people infected with COVID
and that missing infection records would bias the results.
But the study you referenced didn’t do that, and the article you linked doesn’t describe any such comparison. You assumed a dataset structure that simply isn’t there.
How do you know? According to Marton’s link the FDA have not released any details of their clauimed study. one way or the other. The conclusions out of it sound like the usual anti-vaxxer nonsense so no surprise really that they don’t actually show the evidence.
Marton’s statement would certainly be true in Switzerland or the UK, pretty sure in the US as well but perhaps someone with personal experience of vaccines in the US could confirm that.
In this cohort study including 22.7 million vaccinated individuals and 5.9 million unvaccinated individuals, vaccinated individuals had a 74% lower risk of death from severe COVID-19 and no increased risk of all-cause mortality over a median follow-up of 45 months.
As far as anyone can work out there is no study. It’s a general rule that anybody making claims, health-related or otherwise, should provide the data to support those claims, which this clown has not done.
So the assumption that they’ve just picked up on some high-level figures without doing any sort of comparison or statistical analysis to support their claims is quite reasonable - after all, if they had proper evidence then why would they not want to share it?
“How do I know”
Because article didn’t describe any such comparison or details .
Marton’s statement leaps into conjecture from data (not even provided).
You seem very keen to twist away from debating whether there is any validity to the claims being made. Do you think their claims can be justified? If so then please provide supporting data or logic by which you think those conclusions may have been reached, so we can assess their validity.
Marton’s post at least suggests a reasonable and likely mechanism by which they may have reached their conclusions, which they perhaps now have recognised as unsupportable from the data.
I think it’s pointless arguing with Karen from Facebook.
They’ll never quote from any factual sources themselves and have been fooled to believing the nonsense about vaccines from others who are equally gullible.
No point arguing, I agree, but they often try to move discussion away from anything that challenges the spurious claims they’re making or supporting, so it is sometimes useful to steer them back into the corner they can’t get out of.
Someone here advised me here in SFUK the other day that I was preaching to the converted and if I really wanted to be effective I should be taking it to the known… such as Fox News.
the former FDA leaders wrote that Prasad’s claim about child deaths related to COVID-19 vaccines had been reported to a surveillance system that doesn’t contain medical records or other information sufficient to prove a link — and that government scientists had carefully combed through those reports in previous years, reaching different conclusions.
For what it’s worth, I thought the article didn’t make any sense.
A policy change built on vague allusions instead of concrete evidence is shocking.
Vaccines are essential.
My reply to Marton was mainly to ask whether his posts are meant to provoke debate deliberately or whether they are genuinely uninformed.
For example:
“The difference is that a vaccination is in someone’s medical records, but a COVID-19 infection is only recorded if they sought medical help, so it could be missed as a cause.”
If a death occurred, you can still test for an infection, can’t you?
He has now responded with a completely unrelated study, of course.
The majority of cases have occurred in unvaccinated children and teenagers.
The health department deployed mobile health clinics to the area to provide MMR shots, but few people in the community took advantage. “I can tell you that a relatively small number of doses was administered at each of the mobile health unit clinics that we offered,” Bell said.
Liam Neeson has a very particular set of skills—skills he recently lent to a new anti-vax documentary that glorifies the rise of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr.
The Academy Award-nominated actor, known for leading roles in Schindler’s List and the Taken franchise, narrated the film, which includes interviews with Kennedy and other prominent anti-vaccine activists.
Plague of Corruption: 80 Years of Pharmaceutical Corruption Exposed features a bevy of discredited claims about vaccines, including that they cause autism and aluminum toxicity, and frames Kennedy’s leadership of U.S. health policy as hopeful.
The film is based on a book co-authored by disgraced researcher Dr. Judy Mikovits—known for her role in the Plandemic series—and attorney Kent Heckenlively. The book was published by Children’s Health Defense, the multimillion‑dollar anti-vax group founded by Kennedy.
Neeson’s involvement comes at a pivotal moment as Kennedy’s HHS dismantles U.S. public-health infrastructure, including the childhood immunization schedule, as vaccine-preventable diseases reemerge.
First silence:
“Liam Neeson should not lend his name to promoting an anti-science, anti-public health documentary,” said professor Dorit Reiss, a vaccine law expert at the University of California San Francisco College of the Law. Reiss noted that children have already died this year as a result of preventable outbreaks fueled by policies under Kennedy and Trump.
Teal Cannaday, a publicist for Neeson, declined to comment by the time of publication. UNICEF did not respond to our inquiry.
Then, only the voice, not liable for the content:
UPDATE: After initially declining to comment, Cannaday provided the following statement to Important Context:
We all recognize that corruption can exist within the pharmaceutical industry, but that should never be conflated with opposition to vaccines. Liam never has been, and is not, anti-vaccination. His extensive work with UNICEF underscores his long-held support for global immunization and public-health initiatives. He did not shape the film’s editorial content, and any questions about its claims or messaging should be directed to the producers.
Post-mortem tests are much more complicated than that. And as I already said they are not routinely performed on non-suspicious deaths.
So it’s not a question of whether covid, flu or a common cold infection might have been present, or even whether it could be tested for, its a question of whether it would be tested for.
As such, the absence of evidence of covid infection in random deaths, whatever the cause, means absolutely nothing.
