Pat McAfee Situation with ESPN

#102
#102
Cdywolfe said:
He is however, whether knowingly or not, a puppet for the ruling class and I don’t see how somebody who claims to care about liberty could spend so much time simpimg for him. But you do you I guess…
Click to expand...

OK, so you are just saying stupid **** about libertarianism in this thread. Why the fkn run around? You too are a waste of time. It's like you guys believe:

libertarian​

[ lib-er-tair-ee-uhn ]

noun
  1. someone who thinks it's cool for people to cast false pedo aspersions on their political enemies.
 
#103
#103
n_huffhines said:
OK, so you are just saying stupid **** about libertarianism in this thread. Why the fkn run around? You too are a waste of time. It's like you guys believe:

libertarian​

[ lib-er-tair-ee-uhn ]

noun
  1. someone who thinks it's cool for people to cast false pedo aspersions on their political enemies.
Click to expand...
Awww… I hurt his little feelings. How cute.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#107
#107
I think it'd be great for fauci to go on to analyze Aaron Rodgers' reading of defenses or his throwing mechanics. Makes as much sense as having AR on to Monday morning quarterback fauci.
 
#108
#108
n_huffhines said:
OK, so you are just saying stupid **** about libertarianism in this thread. Why the fkn run around? You too are a waste of time. It's like you guys believe:

libertarian​

[ lib-er-tair-ee-uhn ]

noun
  1. someone who thinks it's cool for people to cast false pedo aspersions on their political enemies.
Click to expand...
Also… I’m pretty sure I told you this was a waste of time like 3 days ago.
 
#110
#110
Either way you’ve become boring so have fun simpimg for pharmaceutical companies and people like Jimmy Kimmel all while thinking you’re standing up to system buddy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ttucke11
#111
#111
LouderVol said:
yeah I covered his statements and claims. he was allergic and brought up many of the issues the vaccines actually had, and used that as justification, but Pfizer and the FDA weren't admitting to at the time. I can't remember the exact timeline but those two held onto 100% safe 100% effective for far too long, even before the first studies came out saying anything. Rodgers was pointing that out, and got lit up for it. didn't matter that at least some of his claims were proven true (not 100% effective, not 100% safe), he came out against the narrative.

and considering he started losing his sponsors 1 day after making the statement, yeah I would say the timing is pretty determinant in the matter, and tends to say one isn't very outspoken. and considering Rodgers didn't even bring up the subject matter himself in the interview would further go to show he wasn't outspoken. at the time he could have made those comments once and dropped it, and no one would consider him "outspoken", but it wouldn't have mattered, the sponsors were already reacting.
Click to expand...
n_huffhines said:
Here is the very first headline from Pfizer telling us it was not 100% effective.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

For the most part, you make good defenses of the things you are bringing up, but you aren't bringing up everything that he said. There's plenty of fodder here. Rodgers makes plenty of terrible arguments that are probably convincing to many people. Apparently it may have worked on you because to this day you thought Pfizer was claiming 100% effective.

Loading…

www.si.com
Click to expand...
covered the timeline earlier. I couldn't remember when they gave up the 100% line. it took way too long for people, including the admin, to admit it wasn't what it was cooked up to be, and anyone who refuted that was shut down. heck actual doctors were censored for not being on the party line.
 
#112
#112
LouderVol said:
covered the timeline earlier. I couldn't remember when they gave up the 100% line. it took way too long for people, including the admin, to admit it wasn't what it was cooked up to be, and anyone who refuted that was shut down. heck actual doctors were censored for not being on the party line.
Click to expand...

That headline shows they said 95% effective when the drug was announced. What are you talking about? I can't find that they ever said 100% effective.

I remember my cousin and I marveling at the headlines. 95% effective was a miracle of science. Then Aaron Rodgers types come along and say more or less, "it's not 100% effective, we've been misled." But they told us from the very start.
 
Last edited:
#114
#114
evillawyer said:
I think it'd be great for fauci to go on to analyze Aaron Rodgers' reading of defenses or his throwing mechanics. Makes as much sense as having AR on to Monday morning quarterback fauci.
Click to expand...
Sounds like Fauci wasn't basing his shat on science.

reason.com

Fauci to Congress: 6-foot social distancing guidance likely not based on data

Republican lawmakers criticized the former NIH official for playing "semantics" about lab leaks and gain-of-function research during closed-door congressional testimony this week.
reason.com reason.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL, davethevol, 85SugarVol and 4 others
#115
#115
n_huffhines said:
That headline shows they said 95% effective when the drug was announced. What are you talking about? I can't find that they ever said 100% effective.

I remember my cousin and I marveling at the headlines. 95% effective was a miracle of science. Then Aaron Rodgers types come along and say more or less, "it's not 100% effective, we've been misled." But they told us from the very start.
Click to expand...

Pfizer's CEO was touting 100% in some of his tweets...
 
  • Like
Reactions: UT_Dutchman and Ttucke11
#116
#116
  • Like
Reactions: KptVFL and volfanhill
#117
#117
BigOrangeMojo said:
Pfizer's CEO was touting 100% in some of his tweets...
Click to expand...

Can you point me to the Tweets? I can't find them.

Here is a press release after the drug had released saying 100% effective for test subjects. But in no way is this claiming it will always be 100% successful. Somebody might construe it that way.

The real point is from the start, they told us 95% effective. It wasn't something they corrected after months of dragging their feet. It was their opening line.

Pfizer and BioNTech Confirm High Efficacy and No Serious Safety Concerns Through Up to Six Months Following Second Dose in Updated Topline Analysis of Landmark COVID-19 Vaccine Study | Pfizer

Analysis of 927 confirmed symptomatic cases of COVID-19 demonstrates BNT162b2 is highly effective with 91.3% vaccine efficacy observed against COVID-19, measured seven days through up to six months after the second dose Vaccine was 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the...
www.pfizer.com www.pfizer.com
 
#119
#119
OK, I found the tweet



He's saying the analysis from this specific study in a specific test group showed 100% effective. He is not declaring, "the Pfizer covid vaccine is 100% effective."
 
#122
#122
But wait, there's more...

Thirty-two cases of severe disease, as defined by the CDC, were observed in the placebo group versus none in the BNT162b2 vaccinated group, indicating that the vaccine was 100% efficacious in this analysis against severe disease by the CDC definition
 
#123
#123
BigOrangeMojo said:
The average American will read that as 100% effective. Most aren't smart enough to see the nuance...
Click to expand...

Maybe that's fair, but the discussion is about Pfizer lying/leading the public on for a while until finally coming clean. We've established they started with 95%. Now we've identified that at one point the CEO said something that a scientific illiterate would misinterpret to be a declaration that the drug was 100%. That's interesting, but I think I've proven the point if this is all there is to support the other side of the claim.
 
#124
#124
BigOrangeMojo said:
But wait, there's more...

Thirty-two cases of severe disease, as defined by the CDC, were observed in the placebo group versus none in the BNT162b2 vaccinated group, indicating that the vaccine was 100% efficacious in this analysis against severe disease by the CDC definition
Click to expand...

Is that data false?
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top