RFK claims about vaccines fact checked by Senator Dr Bill Cassidy.

Grim Reaper said:
They are valid unless you can prove them otherwise.
Click to expand...
www.vaccines.news

Censored Lancet paper republished finally peer-reviewed, showing that 74% of deaths after COVID-19 “vaccination” were caused by injections

A systematic review of autopsy findings in deaths following “vaccination” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) that was censored by The Lancet has found new life in the journal Forensic Science International. Review co-author Dr. William Makis, M.D., announced on X that the formerly censored...
www.vaccines.news www.vaccines.news
 
Ichabod Stain said:
www.vaccines.news

Censored Lancet paper republished finally peer-reviewed, showing that 74% of deaths after COVID-19 “vaccination” were caused by injections

A systematic review of autopsy findings in deaths following “vaccination” for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) that was censored by The Lancet has found new life in the journal Forensic Science International. Review co-author Dr. William Makis, M.D., announced on X that the formerly censored...
www.vaccines.news www.vaccines.news
Click to expand...
Here ya go! Enjoy!

The article you linked is from “vaccines.news,” which is known for promoting anti-vaccine narratives. This alone signals potential bias. Now, let’s address the main claim you highlighted:


“74% of deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccine” / a censored Lancet paper.
Click to expand...

Step 1: Check the claim against scientific sources


  • The Lancet is a highly reputable, peer-reviewed medical journal. Any claim of a “censored” paper would normally generate discussion in mainstream scientific media. There is no credible evidence that a Lancet paper has ever reported that 74% of deaths were caused by COVID-19 vaccines.
  • Large-scale studies and pharmacovigilance data (from CDC, EMA, WHO) consistently show that serious adverse events and deaths from vaccines are extremely rare. The vast majority of COVID-19 vaccine side effects are mild and temporary.
  • Post-marketing surveillance has not identified a pattern of deaths anywhere near 74% attributable to vaccines.

Step 2: Assess potential bias


  • The website’s tone (“vaccines.news”) and the framing (“censored Lancet paper”) suggest confirmation bias and alarmism.
  • The headline uses emotionally charged language (“censored,” “74% deaths”) to imply a conspiracy, which is a red flag for credibility.

Step 3: Plausibility check


  • COVID-19 vaccines have been administered to billions worldwide. If 74% of deaths after vaccination were caused by the vaccine, this would be a global catastrophe covered by every mainstream outlet and public health agency—there is no such evidence.
  • Often, articles like this misinterpret VAERS (U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) data, which reports deaths after vaccination but does not establish causation. Many deaths reported are coincidental, especially in older populations.

Conclusion:


  • The claim is false.
  • The source is highly biased and promotes anti-vaccine narratives.
  • Any “republished Lancet paper” claiming this is almost certainly misrepresented or fabricated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
T. A. Gardner said:
I make mistakes too. You seem to orgasm whenever you can find an error I make.

It's like you citing something I didn't say as if I did, and then claiming I'm somehow stupid for doing it.
Click to expand...
i know you make mistakes and that is not the issue.

The issue is you thinking because you say 'AI can and does make mistakes' therefore you jump to 'AI is not a good source of data and facts to utilize in forming your arguments here'.

You and i specifically discussed this and your point was that you thought finding the info and data in more old school ways and not using AI or google was the superior way to do it. Like somehow going to each newspaper site or each Think tank site yourself individually and ALL THE TIME THAT TAKES is superior to just letting AI or google aggregate it for you, so you can see MORE data and facts quicker and assess them quicker.

It is just a dumb thing to think what you think just as it was dumb of the other 'technology doubting magat' to say 'google maps and Charging station apps make mistakes so he thinks using 'common sense' is the way to navigate because we did it that way pre google maps'.

Yes we did do it that way pre google maps... WITH A LOT MORE MISTAKES.
 
Grim Reaper said:

1. Claim by RFK Jr.​


  • RFK Jr. suggested that vaccines “haven’t really helped reduce mortality ever for any condition” and cited studies to support this.

2. Response by Senator Bill Cassidy​


  • Cassidy, a physician, examined the studies RFK cited.
  • One key point: early 20th-century reductions in overall mortality were largely due to improved sanitation, hygiene, clean water, and nutrition, not vaccines.
  • However, Cassidy emphasized that vaccines have drastically reduced deaths from specific infectious diseases.
    • Example: Measles before the vaccine caused ~3.5 million cases and ~550 deaths annually in the U.S.; after the vaccine, cases and deaths dropped to near zero.
  • Cassidy pointed out that some studies RFK cited predated vaccines entirely, so they couldn’t be used as evidence against vaccines’ effectiveness.

3. Fact-Check​


  • Mortality from infectious diseases: Vaccines have saved millions of lives since their introduction. Claims that vaccines “did nothing” for mortality are false and misleading.
  • Improved overall mortality in early 20th century: Mostly due to non-vaccine public health measures (sanitation, clean water, better nutrition).
  • Studies RFK Jr. cited: Partly accurate historically, but misapplied to argue vaccines had no impact.

✅ Conclusion​


  • Cassidy’s rebuttal aligns with mainstream public health data: vaccines are highly effective in preventing deaths from vaccine-preventable diseases.
  • RFK Jr.’s claim that vaccines “haven’t helped reduce mortality” is misleading because it cherry-picks data and ignores post-vaccine reductions in disease-specific mortality.
Click to expand...
@T. A. Gardner argues that using AI to quickly aggregate those points as PROOF of what Senator Dr Cassidy is wrong to do.

Somehow simply letting AI lay out what i already pointed to, and presenting it as proof is not correct to do.

Why? because it almost NEVER supports the magat view so they want AI summaries excluded for that reason. They want he said/ she said type opinion arguments only.
 
QP! said:
@T. A. Gardner argues that using AI to quickly aggregate those points as PROOF of what Senator Dr Cassidy is wrong to do.

Somehow simply letting AI lay out what i already pointed to, and presenting it as proof is not correct to do.

Why? because it almost NEVER supports the magat view so they want AI summaries excluded for that reason. They want he said/ she said type opinion arguments only.
Click to expand...
Well you can't always get what you want. They are going to have to deal with it.
 
QP! said:
@T. A. Gardner argues that using AI to quickly aggregate those points as PROOF of what Senator Dr Cassidy is wrong to do.

Somehow simply letting AI lay out what i already pointed to, and presenting it as proof is not correct to do.

Why? because it almost NEVER supports the magat view so they want AI summaries excluded for that reason. They want he said/ she said type opinion arguments only.
Click to expand...
I haven't weighed in on this thread. I think that RFK jr. is something of a nut and not completely credible.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I haven't weighed in on this thread. I think that RFK jr. is something of a nut and not completely credible.
Click to expand...
i am talking about your blanket claim re the US as above to back up the points being made by presenting aggragated data and facts in one narrative.

You have consistently said because AI can be wrong at times, that you dismiss what is being posted and will not engage it.
 
QP! said:
i am talking about your blanket claim re the US as above to back up the points being made by presenting aggragated data and facts in one narrative.

You have consistently said because AI can be wrong at times, that you dismiss what is being posted and will not engage it.
Click to expand...
Could you get that translated into English please?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Yep. You have to deal with Google AI being repeatedly proven wrong, so I guess we're even.
Click to expand...
^ and there it is.

'Humans not using AI are rarely wrong so AI being 'repeatedly proven wrong' is not something to consider.' That is the constant suggested point Terry does not say but is inferred from what he says.

The fact that AI will be correct far more than people will be, who are also "repeatedly proven wrong" plays no part in Terrys analysis or statement.

It is his second version of EV's catch fire and thus are worse than ICE vehicle while he will not acknowledge ICE catch fire more and kill more people in fires.

Since the second part (true) does not support the point he wants to make he ignores them.
 
Last edited:
Grim Reaper said:
Here ya go! Enjoy!

The article you linked is from “vaccines.news,” which is known for promoting anti-vaccine narratives. This alone signals potential bias. Now, let’s address the main claim you highlighted:




Step 1: Check the claim against scientific sources


  • The Lancet is a highly reputable, peer-reviewed medical journal. Any claim of a “censored” paper would normally generate discussion in mainstream scientific media. There is no credible evidence that a Lancet paper has ever reported that 74% of deaths were caused by COVID-19 vaccines.
  • Large-scale studies and pharmacovigilance data (from CDC, EMA, WHO) consistently show that serious adverse events and deaths from vaccines are extremely rare. The vast majority of COVID-19 vaccine side effects are mild and temporary.
  • Post-marketing surveillance has not identified a pattern of deaths anywhere near 74% attributable to vaccines.

Step 2: Assess potential bias


  • The website’s tone (“vaccines.news”) and the framing (“censored Lancet paper”) suggest confirmation bias and alarmism.
  • The headline uses emotionally charged language (“censored,” “74% deaths”) to imply a conspiracy, which is a red flag for credibility.

Step 3: Plausibility check


  • COVID-19 vaccines have been administered to billions worldwide. If 74% of deaths after vaccination were caused by the vaccine, this would be a global catastrophe covered by every mainstream outlet and public health agency—there is no such evidence.
  • Often, articles like this misinterpret VAERS (U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) data, which reports deaths after vaccination but does not establish causation. Many deaths reported are coincidental, especially in older populations.

Conclusion:


  • The claim is false.
  • The source is highly biased and promotes anti-vaccine narratives.
  • Any “republished Lancet paper” claiming this is almost certainly misrepresented or fabricated.
Click to expand...
these are not rational counter-arguments.

they are the equivalent of ad hominem attacks, and are fallacies.

you need to attack the study itself.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
these are not rational counter-arguments.

they are the equivalent of ad hominem attacks, and are fallacies.

you need to attack the study itself.
Click to expand...
says the guy who refuses to attack the data and information presented in the AI summaries.

How ironic.

How stupid.

And i agree with you that if there is information presented that needs to be countered then just do it. But it goes both ways. The data or information is either accurate or good or not and hand waving it away is not a way to determine that.
 
Grim Reaper said:
Here ya go! Enjoy!

The article you linked is from “vaccines.news,” which is known for promoting anti-vaccine narratives. This alone signals potential bias. Now, let’s address the main claim you highlighted:




Step 1: Check the claim against scientific sources


  • The Lancet is a highly reputable, peer-reviewed medical journal. Any claim of a “censored” paper would normally generate discussion in mainstream scientific media. There is no credible evidence that a Lancet paper has ever reported that 74% of deaths were caused by COVID-19 vaccines.
  • Large-scale studies and pharmacovigilance data (from CDC, EMA, WHO) consistently show that serious adverse events and deaths from vaccines are extremely rare. The vast majority of COVID-19 vaccine side effects are mild and temporary.
  • Post-marketing surveillance has not identified a pattern of deaths anywhere near 74% attributable to vaccines.

Step 2: Assess potential bias


  • The website’s tone (“vaccines.news”) and the framing (“censored Lancet paper”) suggest confirmation bias and alarmism.
  • The headline uses emotionally charged language (“censored,” “74% deaths”) to imply a conspiracy, which is a red flag for credibility.

Step 3: Plausibility check


  • COVID-19 vaccines have been administered to billions worldwide. If 74% of deaths after vaccination were caused by the vaccine, this would be a global catastrophe covered by every mainstream outlet and public health agency—there is no such evidence.
  • Often, articles like this misinterpret VAERS (U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) data, which reports deaths after vaccination but does not establish causation. Many deaths reported are coincidental, especially in older populations.

Conclusion:


  • The claim is false.
  • The source is highly biased and promotes anti-vaccine narratives.
  • Any “republished Lancet paper” claiming this is almost certainly misrepresented or fabricated.
Click to expand...
vaers is a joke.

no doctors used it.
 
QP! said:
says the guy who refuses to attack the data and information presented in the AI summaries.

How ironic.

How stupid.

And i agree with you that if there is information presented that needs to be countered then just do it. But it goes both ways. The data or information is either accurate or good or not and hand waving it away is not a way to determine that.
Click to expand...
the ai summaries are variations of ad hominem attacks, poisoning the well, and made up lies.

AI lies often.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
vaers is a joke.

no doctors used it.
Click to expand...

1. What VAERS is​


  • VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) is a U.S. national system for monitoring vaccine safety.
  • It is co-managed by the CDC and FDA.
  • Anyone can submit a report: doctors, nurses, patients, or caregivers. ✅


2. “No doctors used it”​


  • This is false. Many reports are submitted by healthcare professionals.
  • Doctors are encouraged, and in some cases required, to report certain adverse events following vaccination.


3. “VAERS is a joke”​


  • This is misleading. VAERS is not perfect, but it is a real and legitimate early warning systemfor vaccine safety:
    • Strengths: Helps detect rare adverse events that might not appear in clinical trials.
    • Limitations:
      • Reports are unverified and do not prove causation.
      • Anyone can submit, so data quality varies.
  • Misrepresenting VAERS as “proof that vaccines are dangerous” is a common anti-vaccine tactic.


✅ Bottom line​


  • VAERS is real, used by doctors and public health authorities, and is important for safety monitoring.
  • It is not a database of confirmed vaccine-caused injuries, and using it that way is misleading.
 
Ichabod Stain said:
the ai summaries are variations of ad hominem attacks, poisoning the well, and made up lies.

AI lies often.
Click to expand...
The site you posted from "lies often" and is often filled with "Ad hominem attacks and poisoning of the well and made up lies", so by your own reasoning we DO NOT then have to read any single article you post to address it specifically.

By YOUR OWN reasoning we now get to hand wave it away and dismiss it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top