The Basics:
I want to reiterate the principals of harm as it relates to this discussion:
Is the risk of harm higher to someone with a vaccination, then without one. This is not about if the vaccines work against COVID. This is not a comparison of hospitalization rates of vaccine versus unvaccinated for COVID related illness. This is about the potential benefits that are provided by the vaccines are now known to be worse than the negative effects.
Con has not negated, refuted or countered my UK data source, which clearly outline the total number needed to vaccinate, called NNV. NNV is a known statistical measure for assessing vaccine efficacy. The data is very clear. The number of either hospital or serious hospital infections that could be mitigated through broad vaccination strategy is very very low. Con would need to show the the NNV modeling is flawed, or not an effective mechanism for measuring vaccine efficacy.
Unless otherwise argued, the baselines on the NNV stats for the UK I presented in Round 1, are an effective tool for mitigating hospitalizations for COVID. What you will see is that no matter what type of statistical game, or poor datasource argument one makes, the numbers are so disproportionate, clearly demonstrating that the harm is worse than the good.
Con's Study:
Con provided a document from the Washington State Department of Health. The document purport to support that vaccines reduce hospitalizations, for COVID illnesses. Lets be clear. This document only talks about the benefits of the vaccines with respect to the viral disease. It does not address the known harms, the things we have learned. This report is telling because it says a few things. While the report does states that "Interpreting the data is challenging", the report highlights another key element with COVID as a whole, and that being the overall age related death risk demographic of COVID
Deaths are only shown for Washingtonians ages 35 years and older due to the relatively small number of deaths in other age groups and associated instability in rates when assessing by vaccination status.
Con's study, shows that in certain data acquisition models, that a correlation between reduced hospitalizations and vaccine uptake is supported. For argument sake, I will concede that in certain circumstances the vaccine can have a benefit. I also understand that people support the vaccines. Again non-of this is part of the debate. The debate is that we have learned the vaccines do more harm than good. It is irrelevent if they do good. What is the measure is if the harm outweighs the benefit.
Just to counter it, here is the official UK data for all of 2022
HERE, and previous data. Here is a
graph a friend of mine put together from that raw data. It shows a stunningly higher COVID death rate among the vaccinated versus the unvaccinated. All UK Government Data.
What Con Has Not Addressed:
Con has not addressed the harms known to be caused by the vaccines at all. My opening argument was showing the clear NNV rates to prevent a hospitalization or a serious hospitalization. It also showed the injury rates that case a SAE (Serious Adverse Event). The study I showed is from a world renowned vaccine safety monitoring group. Con inferred that there is no hospitalization support for the statistic presented. I clearly did not articulate the foundation for COVID related vaccine injury rates. I shall break it down with further evidence of the harms.
Stamp Out Covid:
Something that was theorized early on, and turned out to be true, was the principal of negative efficacy. The more COVID shots you have, the higher your chance of contracting COVID.
The Cleveland Study showed a clear pattern. Your probability of contracting symptomatic COVID is higher based on the number of vaccine shots you receive. Check out the Figure 1 and Figure 2 graphs.
This UK Government Report. Page 45 shows that the more shots you have, the higher you hospitalization rate for COVID is. You cant make this stuff up.
The vaccines do not, and never were designed to prevent transmission, and the more you get vaccinated, the more you can catch it, the more you catch it, the higher chance you have of being in the hospital, not withstanding your increasing chance at a serious adverse event from one of the injections. So we now know the concept of the vaccination program is ineffective.
Switzerland has stopped recommending the vaccine across all age and risk groups
Western Australia. Locked their state down for nearly 700 days. Most people got vaccinated before they got exposed to the virus in WA. However it had no effect on COVID mortality, or hospital pressure. In fact they Australian date for adverse events, showed significant concern.
Vaccine Injuries - Pfizer data:
I am going to start by looking at the Pfizer data, specifically the internal documents that were released subject to a Federal Law Suit. This supports the position that the harm was learned after the fact, because Pfizer wanted to keep these records secret for 75 years. I am going to be using this Pfizer report
here
Table 1, on page 7 gives a fascinating view. Relevant cases means patients, and adverse events, means symptoms related to an adverse event. Each active case had on average 3 different adverse events. This table shows there were 42,086 patients containing a whopping 158,893 adverse events.
23% or 9,400 cases list an Unknown outcome. It gets worse: 46.5% or 19,582 cases Recovered/Recovering were mixed together. The most revealing number of cases was The most revealing number of cases was 1,223 [2.91%], patients with ‘Fatal’ outcomes. The poor tracking, categorization and deliberate failure to include a cardiac related category, made finding some of the now known side effects harder to find.
This is from Pfizers own study data. So their data supports that there are i fact issues. Page 8 of the report shows about 50k of those events are considered "Serious" per the definition I outlined above.
394 total cardiac related cases from Pfizers own data that included the following.
Arrhythmia: 102 cases
Myocardial infarction: 89 cases
Acute myocardial infarction: 41 cases
Cardiac failure: 80 cases
Acute cardiac failure: 11 cases
Cariogenic shock: 7 cases
Orthostatic tachycardia syndrome:
7 Pericarditis: 32 cases
There are many other type os SAE that I may refer to later if required.
MYOCARDITIS
- 5x Myocarditis in Nordic Countries - BMJ
- Thailand prospective study saw abnormal cardiac finding rates of 1 - 29 for boys and 1 in 16 for girls
- Seattle, 35 cases of Myocarditis following a vaccine in Children.
Vaccine Injuries - VAERS, etc:
VAERS, is the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System, a US system to report vaccine adverse events. While this can be done by anyone, it is incredibly complex, takes over 40 minutes, and requires substantial medical knowledge. Every report is then vetted, and deleted if it is incomplete, or inaccurate.
The Yellow Card Scheme is the UK version of VAERS, and has a simpler interface. The Western Australian version is WAVSS
But just check out the graphs. Clearly there is a problem, and it is similar for each three.
Summary
- I have established that the NNV rates show a very high number of people need to be vaccinated to prevent a single hospitalization from COVID-19
- I have demonstrated that the more vaccinations you get, the higher your chance of getting COVID is.
- I have demonstrated that hospitalizations for vaccinated with COVID exceed those unvaccinated, contrary to Con's
- I have demonstrated that Pfizers own data, showed significant adverse events, and that is data we learned after the EUA was granted
- I have demonstrated that there are numerous studies around the world that show marked adverse events, such as myocarditis.
- I have demonstrated the the overall SAE rate is about 1 in 800. So for clarity, statistically speaking, if 800 people got a jab, one will have a serious adverse event requiring hospitalization.
in the 50-59 year old, HIGH RISK group, the NNV is 1:3600. So you have a 4.5x chance of ending up in the hospital after getting the jab then you do with getting COVID. And remember more COVID vaccines, more COVID, more COVID, more chance of being hospitalized.
I have therefore shown that we have learned that the COVID vaccines do more harm than good.
Whiteflame could rule differently if any get reported. But that’s unlikely. The debaters are both fine with it; and there is no evidence of duress.
If my vote is against the rules, please remove it. Sorry to cause trouble. I thought concessions count even if in comments.
I believe Mikal conceded to Bluesteel on DDO when leaving the site and that it was allowed. But the rules could be different on DART (and it seems that way from Barney's comment).
https://ddo.fandom.com/wiki/Mikal
Technically those votes are based on outside content. If reported, they won’t pass muster.
We’ve had people try to win in the comment section and forums (with the voting on some debates clearly reflective of this instead of debate content). So the rule is votes must be based on the debate rounds
But there have never been cases before where one can concede post-debate and it is genuinely considered in vote moderation.
No wait.
Let him sit in his delusion.
It's funnier that way.
I believe Slainte is leaving the site. That may explain those other things.
Shut up.
It's extremely strange that he forfeited this after voting for Lancelot in the rap battle against me and never once explaining the vote when I ask about things in it.
do concessions in comments done well after the debate ended count as valid?
Concessions in comments section mean nothing and seem like collusion at play.
1 more vote to seal the deal
Pro conceded in the comments. Given the circumstances, this probably deserves a few additional votes.
I forfeit. Please round up the votes to take this.
No one is ignoring anything. The problem is the opposite of ignoring. The problem is that YOU ARE GOING TO FAR IN YOUR CONCLUSIONS.
For this specific debate, you say that we have definitively learned that the COVID vaccines do more harm than good. The authors of the study you cited to support this claim say, among other things:
"knowing the actual demographics of those who experienced an increase in serious AESI in the vaccine group is necessary for a proper harm-benefit analysis."
Therefore, you are going too far to claim that we have definitively learned the COVID vaccines do more harm than good. It could be the case that a proper harm-benefit analysis, as the authors call for, shows that they don't do more harm than good.
No one is ignoring the evidence of harms from the vaccine. Please fully understand the original paper's discussion section and don't think you are qualified to make larger claims than the authors.
I could not disagree more. An 9bvious secondary favr that is deduced from an experiment is not ignored
Many studies gave a hypothesis and the results do not align. Rather does not mean ypu ignore them. In fa t from a bias perspective those results are more trustworthy.
Check the Stanford Prison Experiment as an unexpected result that shocked the psychological world. You are just flat out wrong
In scientific research, one must design an experiment specifically to test for certain hypotheses. The authors of the study you cited did not design it to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs. The data also does not show what you claim it to show. Actual scientists are careful about what they claim based on the statistical evidence that they find. You say that their study proves that vaccinations definitely do more harm than good. THE EVIDENCE FROM THE STUDY DOES NOT JUSTIFY THAT CONCLUSION. See what they authors write in the Discussion section for an actual understanding of the implications of their study.
A car is tested for fuel efficiency. That is the purpose. Yes uou discover the car catches on fire 4 times out of ten at 6k rpm. The study purpose may be A however the data also shows B
Lemming says in their vote:
"Sir.Lancelot made apologies for the forfeit, seeming to have interruptions in life,
So conduct, equal enough,"
If this is allowed to stand, which I think it should be, then your following reason is invalidated:
"Even if they were generally bad conduct, they were at least arguments, unlike the forfeitures. Making someone sit around a full week is quite rude, and it was done multiple times. Withholding of that point where is clearly against your majority awardee, is strong evidence of overwhelming bias."
Also, see this section from the voting policy:
"People lacking in intellectual integrity will always devise more ways to cheat. If you spot some true rubbish that invalidates their argument or the spirit of debate, call it out with a vote against them on conduct (or more as warranted by the comparative arguments) and move on."
I argue that the total misrepresentation of the references that Pro cited is "rubbish that invalidates their argument" and invalidates the spirit of this debate. Therefore, I called it out with a vote against them on conduct. The cited section of the voting policy only offers some examples and does not rule out my interpretation.
**************************************************
>Reported Vote: jamgiller // Mod action: Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: 5 to con
>Reason for Decision: See Comments Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
I literally only read the first paragraph... I do hope it was con who caught the misrepresentation of studies; but alas, there is a more glaring problem...
It needs to be said that bad arguments are already punished under arguments, so there is no need to double dip to assign them against conduct as well. Even if they were generally bad conduct, they were at least arguments, unlike the forfeitures. Making someone sit around a full week is quite rude, and it was done multiple times. Withholding of that point where is clearly against your majority awardee, is strong evidence of overwhelming bias.
Conduct is an optional award as a penalty for excessive abuse committed by the other side, such as extreme unsportsmanlike or outright toxic behavior which distracted from the topical debate.
The voter acted in such a way to suggest they did not give fair weighting to the debate content.
**************************************************
jamgiller
06.06.2023 12:13AM
#3
Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:
Reason:
Pro seriously misrepresented the scientific studies they cited. Although the actual content of the sources seems to be reliable, Pro is an extremely unreliable communicator, as I will explain below. Since Pro's entire argument is based on their attempt to use scientific data, and they failed to use it properly, I must give arguments to Con, even though the latter forfeited two rounds. At least Con made reasonable arguments based on correctly interpreting the studies they cited.
Addressing Pro's most egregious misrepresentations of the scientific literature:
1. The study that Pro cites for the rates of Serious Adverse Events (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.08.036) directly contradicts the resolution of the debate as specifically defined by Pro. In the study's Introduction, the authors write: "Our study was not designed to evaluate the overall harm-benefit of vaccination programs so far." More importantly, the author's Discussion describes the implications and limitations of their study in detail, and closes with the following:
"We emphasize that our investigation is preliminary, to point to the need for more involved analysis. The risks of serious AESIs in the trials represent only group averages. SAEs are unlikely to be distributed equally across the demographic subgroups enrolled in the trial, and the risks may be substantially less in some groups compared to others. Thus, knowing the actual demographics of those who experienced an increase in serious AESI in the vaccine group is necessary for a proper harm-benefit analysis."
Therefore, the very study that Pro tried to use to prove the resolution actually shows that we have not yet learned whether COVID vaccines have done more harm than good. I advise those who read this to review the Discussion section of the paper, which provides serious coverage of this topic.
2. Pro cited the study described above under the heading "UK", and compared the SAE rates to estimates of numbers needed to vaccinate from UK data. However, the study described above is based on data from North America. It is incorrect and misleading to directly compare medical studies of sample groups from two different populations and separate continents as Pro did.
3. Pro falsely claims that COVID vaccines lead to more deaths. In Round 2, they claim the "official UK data for all of 2022" shows a higher COVID death rate among the vaccinated, whereas the official report on the data from the UK's Office of National Statistics (https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/latest#cite-this-statistical-bulletin) directly states:
"Monthly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) have been consistently lower for all months since booster introduction in September 2021 for people who had received at least a third dose or booster at least 21 days ago, compared with unvaccinated people and those with just a first or second dose."
No wonder Pro tried to use a ridiculous graph from their friend to support their false claim.
I am not sure if you are being sarcastic. I think a clear definition reduces Kritiks?
“COVID Vaccines, means Pfizer, Moderna, J&J, and AZ.”
And F1 means Mercedes, Ferrari, Red Bull, Aston Martin, Mclaren, Williams, etc.
And consoles mean Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, etc.
And smartphones mean Apple, Samsung, Huawei, etc.
And fast food means McDonalds, KFC, Wendy’s, Burger King, etc.
And yes, you should always equate the products to the companies that makes them.
The “more harm than good” has already gone out the window with Pros own stats. 1:800 is not more harm than good, it’s 800x more good than harm.
"We have learned" no sir I have not.
Appreciate it. I'll admit that I'm one to talk about shorter arguments - not exactly known for my brevity.
I name dropped you in my argument :)
Guessing you don’t want to be doing several of these simultaneously, so we can arrange the details later.
Fair point. Feel free to construct one whiteflame. Austin, same for you bud.
Thanks, but no. Not planning on using ChatGPT for any purpose during a debate.
I’d be willing to take this, but as it set, this would balloon like crazy. 30,000 is way too high on the character count, I think it’s worth restricting the debate to a single vaccine or at least a vaccine type (mRNA), and 5 rounds seems a bit much. We want to make sure voters are willing to read through it and, with this much stuff to cover and so much space to do it in, most people just wouldn’t be willing to do that kind of work.
I think this one's for you
Change the "time for argument" to two weeks and I will accept.