Steve appears to have two separate and very different evidence thresholds. In the “25,800 deaths” case, he accepts evidence in one direction readily while ignoring evidence from the same source in the other direction.
Anyone who’s serious about medicine has different evidence thresholds for risks and safety of drugs. That’s why the FDA takes a lot of evidence to allow a new drug to be marketed while at the same time withdrawing a drug from market.
I just learned that my Dad’s unvaccinated brother died with Covid-19 yesterday.
One thing I didn’t mention before was that my Dad knew his brother was in hospital with Covid on a ventilator, and still refused to take a vaccine because he claims it has caused “100,000” deaths (plus justifications that don’t apply to him, like “infertility!” and “harms children!”).
Now I suppose Kirsch isn’t the one using the number 100,000; he was saying 25,800 four months ago and now the Malone/Kirsch/etc group is saying things like this:
[...] the death toll is over 40,000 people.
[...] the vaccine is more likely to kill you than save you. For example, Pfizer’s own study showed deaths from COVID were reduced by a factor of 2, but this saving was more than offset by deaths from cardiac arrest which went up by 4X.
(Of course, the details of both of these claims are behind a paywall, though the first one was published before the paywall went up so interested parties can see it on the Wayback Machine. I googled for a little while for these claims, finding Snopes and Politifact reporting “False” and “pants on fire” for a claim of 45,000 deaths, though I found no one else making or analyzing the second claim, just NYT saying “Heart Problem More Common After Covid-19 Than After Vaccination”. FWIW I got a new permanent heart problem after contracting Covid and before getting the vaccine, but there’s a strong chance it’s unconnected.)
Regardless of who said “100,000”, Kirsch helped get the ball rolling, and now my uncle and former legal guardian is dead.
But people like you, and probably even my Dad, can’t bring themselves to consider that maybe, just maybe, Kirsch et al are not acting in good faith (or are otherwise epistemically compromised). Why is that? I really can’t fathom it. I mean, sure, there’s outgroup hate and ingroup love, but to risk your life without allowing even a seed of doubt in your mind that you could be wrong?
I really can’t fathom it. I mean, sure, there’s outgroup hate and ingroup love, but to risk your life without allowing even a seed of doubt in your mind that you could be wrong?
I’m vaccinated. To the extend that I’m making currently choices about risking COVID-19 it’s a combination of not ordering Ivermectin from India, not taking my taffix and chosing to go to events where there are other people.
I’m thinking I’m arguing for more doubt on most of the major issues involved. The expecation is the lab leak hypnothesis where I think there’s less doubt than many other people but that’s not directly medical policy.
Lest you forgot, the two pieces of evidence in question are the assertions (1) “X” and (2) “my assertion X was wrong and here’s why” on the same blog post. You’re saying it is reasonable to conclude from (1) and (2) that X is true.
Moreover the blog post is written specifically by a fan of Kirsch (it linked back to Kirsch for its claim that “the Pfizer mRNA vaccine will have the highest concentration in the ovaries and bone marrow”) so Kirsch should have no reason not to trust (2).
Anyone who’s serious about medicine has different evidence thresholds for risks and safety of drugs. That’s why the FDA takes a lot of evidence to allow a new drug to be marketed while at the same time withdrawing a drug from market.
I just learned that my Dad’s unvaccinated brother died with Covid-19 yesterday.
One thing I didn’t mention before was that my Dad knew his brother was in hospital with Covid on a ventilator, and still refused to take a vaccine because he claims it has caused “100,000” deaths (plus justifications that don’t apply to him, like “infertility!” and “harms children!”).
Now I suppose Kirsch isn’t the one using the number 100,000; he was saying 25,800 four months ago and now the Malone/Kirsch/etc group is saying things like this:
(Of course, the details of both of these claims are behind a paywall, though the first one was published before the paywall went up so interested parties can see it on the Wayback Machine. I googled for a little while for these claims, finding Snopes and Politifact reporting “False” and “pants on fire” for a claim of 45,000 deaths, though I found no one else making or analyzing the second claim, just NYT saying “Heart Problem More Common After Covid-19 Than After Vaccination”. FWIW I got a new permanent heart problem after contracting Covid and before getting the vaccine, but there’s a strong chance it’s unconnected.)
Regardless of who said “100,000”, Kirsch helped get the ball rolling, and now my uncle and former legal guardian is dead.
But people like you, and probably even my Dad, can’t bring themselves to consider that maybe, just maybe, Kirsch et al are not acting in good faith (or are otherwise epistemically compromised). Why is that? I really can’t fathom it. I mean, sure, there’s outgroup hate and ingroup love, but to risk your life without allowing even a seed of doubt in your mind that you could be wrong?
I’m sorry to hear about your uncle, DP.
I’m vaccinated. To the extend that I’m making currently choices about risking COVID-19 it’s a combination of not ordering Ivermectin from India, not taking my taffix and chosing to go to events where there are other people.
I’m thinking I’m arguing for more doubt on most of the major issues involved. The expecation is the lab leak hypnothesis where I think there’s less doubt than many other people but that’s not directly medical policy.
Kirsch is also fully vaccinated. You’re still
deflectingnot answering the questions I ask.Lest you forgot, the two pieces of evidence in question are the assertions (1) “X” and (2) “my assertion X was wrong and here’s why” on the same blog post. You’re saying it is reasonable to conclude from (1) and (2) that X is true.
Moreover the blog post is written specifically by a fan of Kirsch (it linked back to Kirsch for its claim that “the Pfizer mRNA vaccine will have the highest concentration in the ovaries and bone marrow”) so Kirsch should have no reason not to trust (2).