The rise in cancer diagnoses can be framed in the Base Rate Fallacy, or the Accuracy Paradox. As more accurate testing is done which diagnoses cancer earlier, and more young people are tested using these methods, the rate of positive diagnoses will increase, but that does not indicate a rise in the rate of actual cancer. Not all who are diagnosed early may develop tumors that kill them (false positives) and not all who are treated will respond.
Are you saying doctors are scheduling tests for 20 year old people with no symptoms? ...because the hospital bought the apparatus and the administrator says "we need to bill on this thing or you can't keep your PA..." Or something. Is the existence of earlier diagnosis methods enough to spur healthy-seeming young people to be tested? "Bro, you gotta check out the new ass scanner. It's AI driven. It know how many times I ate pizza last year."
There's got to be some thing that gets healthy looking young patients in for a diagnosis or this idea doesn't work.
Pancreatic cancer has no symptoms until it’s too late. They test based on genetic factors, blood work and other comorbidity risks. And that testing actually works.
Come on David, all that science stuff is just a giant con job for the pharmaceutical companies. As noted in the comments, you must be on their payroll? When it comes to trump voters/supporters, their ability to make stuff up ranks them high in the top of their class.
Of course, they've learned well at the knee of the master, just say spew the shit, truth be damned.
Thanks for the great news; the tragedy is how far back the DOGE insanity will take us. When all is said and done, those first few months of Elon et al will be viewed as one of the most tragic of times in the trump era...and that screams volumes.
Yes. The default is to maximalize for the feeling of assurance. Continuing the COVID response remniscence: When your government tries to maximalize for you via a combination of "guidance" and enforcement, you can feel a mistaken sense of safety if you are a maximizer. If i'd been a maximizer, there's a reasonable chance i'd still be married. Kiddo still was forced to take the shot with no positive statistical impact, thankfully without suffering injury, as my mental model predicted. BUT i had tried to talk a maximizer out of maximalization, and that, like everything else, has costs.
Maximizer only looks at one risk set, pretends the other doesn’t exist. It was the point you made, just with a label I applied. It wasn’t that hard to figure out. Possibly the rambling story made you lose focus. I was married to a maximizer, I am a risk assessor. She thought her kid was going to die because her husband assessed the risks. Your command of English is… fantastic, but I’m starting to wonder if you spoke something else initially? It wasn’t hidden. My 14 year old daughter would have grasped we were talking about the same thing. She would have gotten it at 8. So if we are dealing with a second language issue, that’s fine. Just trying to figure out if this is incomprehension is real or not.
See, you don't understand relative risk though you try to approach it. When you say failing to evaluate a risk - do you mean a risk of unknowns, or a quantified risk that can be evaluated agains the other option(s)?
Sounds like you just have fear of the unknown, and fail to recognize there are unknowns on the other side of the equation too.
So to make a more topical response (yes big misread on my part. It's the protruding MAGA forehead that occasionally makes it difficult to read): COVID shot uptake has dropped from a high of 85% during the active mandates (they're still around, but they generally required 2 shots, and most people got their 2 shots and walked away sensibly) ... down to... well for kids it's south of 10% now. I think adults are around 15%. Only one band of the population wants them - probably hardcore progressives - but whichever group the most people still masking up alone in their car: that's the primary group. Additionally, Pfizer's 20k new person study had to be canceled (according to Pfizer) due to lack of interest. In an environment like that, how in blazes did visits get reduced by 50%. Such a big number, 50% That's gotta be alot, right? I think when i get to the source material, the answer is going to be something along the lines of "Well, we had (small order of magnitude) Covid visits to the ER in 2024 and we had (same small order, but half!) in 2025 and it was because of X thing we did with the process" or something - but not the increasingly benign aspect of the current strain of COVID, whichever one they're on now.
That's one way to engage in intentional fraud on the public and still be truthful. It's not a direct numeric claim so the reader can imagine something helpful to your case, based on the impressiveness of the percentage. 50% is amazing? Must have been a real, meaningfully direct "effect" the improvement was 50%.
Since 15% of the population is on the scale of 50 million (ooh, BIG number!) you can't get any bang out of saying "1000 covid emergency rooms visits in 2024, 500 in 2025, wow we are awesome". Even saying "10000" and "5000" wouldn't seem a good sell when you're deciding what to tell the press - not that there's any chance those are the numbers. But what definitely is a good sell is 50%.
The numbers could be 100 and 50 for all I know, I don't have actual sources yet.
Anyone know off the top of their head what that trick is called? Damned thing has a name. Definitely related to bookending.
Uh. I was denied access to a doctor while on covid. I waa forced to hit an emergency room with a secondary infection that was an obvious "here's yoir zpack, go sleep". - which is what i got 10 mins after being brought back. Dont you think that stat maybe deserves a little peek into the crosstabs since the treatment proticol was literally "go home until you turn blue" for those with actual covid issues and doctors who dared attempt to treat were brought up before licensure boards. I'd say youre solidly in the numbrrs and STILL not addtessing reality.
Yeah, but until you walk the crosstabs, you dont know what youre looking at - assuming rich data was supplied - yiu only knpe thr intention of the compiler.. There are many reasons that could have changed, and you are assiuming the salutary one for your hypothesis. Look, have you ever piously told someome "correkatiom is mpt causation"? We all need a habit of tellng ourselves that when our priors are tweaked.
Additionally, why is that study useful? The covid shots had a salitary offect on alpha. This iz pointing to the narrow band of success of the therapy -in such a way as to leave me wondering ifvit iz structured to ignore the policy shift that occurred - vaccinated people were allpwed notmalish care. You dont seem to bs taking anything other than "an authority gave me a number" into account.
No one should be guided by that study, as youve described it. Its irrelevant at best. There never was another comparable moment of field efficacy for a covid shot. First version of the shot vs alpha was it, and the beneficuaries were, on average, old and fat. Children mever benefitted.
I'm unsure you understand what you're saying. Explain the utility of a study showing that five years ago the panic induced by a myopic and dishonest response to a real threat may have been reduced when doctors were allowed to FINALLY start treating, even if it was within the constraints of only treating with the gene therapy. What is the utility to the parent, as you stated? The therapy does nothing fir children. Its awesome to have a broad perspective - I don't think you do - but it has to be informed by context.
Thanks for showing the standard MAGA lack of care for life and inability to deal with relatively minor inconveniences, and again the overall lack of understanding of relative risk.
You seem to have a poor understanding of how exactly things went - which is that a novel respiratory virus swept the world, killed a heckuva lot of people before effective treatments were available.
And again, mRNA delivering a spike protein is not gene therapy.
Maga types don’t have the intellectual capacity to assess each situation based on its own merits. Which is why all vaccines are lumped together (hello, measles), and why anything with mRNA mechanism is also lumped together, be it covid or cancer treatment. Combined with their inability to understand science (like the difference btw mRNA and DNA), you’re left with a segment of society that puts the capital S in stupid.
Fine, fine. Do YOU think we should be forcing people to be subjects in medical experiments? Do you think we should be forcing people to take particular medical treatments if they don't want to? That's the sort of thing we primitive knuckdraggers wonder. What's your answer, ubermench?
No, people shouldn’t be “forced” into medical experiments (like the Tuskegee syphilis study…which I’m sure you have spent much of your time decrying 😂).
As for vaccine mandates (like MMR), that’s where the concept of greater good comes into the equation (which maga retards are far too retarded to grasp).
Yeah, again, friend. It's not anti-vax. That is a marketing term. They want medical freedom. They don't want to be forced. And I'm with 'em. It's fucking evil to be required to put something in your kid's arm that you don't trust. It's evil to be forced to accept it yourself. It's not complicated. Your view is downstream of a massive disinformation campaign. I think maybe you can land on the one thing they can't have: ok, maybe we shouldn't force people.
That, of course will make you an anti-vaxxer in their eyes, of course, so I advise against it.
Wait, why is the MMR vaccine a no-brainer to you? Measles and Mumps aren't really killers. Not super familiar with Rubella. Is that one a serious killer?
I can tell you one issue people have with it: there's a suspicion that throwing that much genetic material at the immune system doesn't produce a durable immune response. And indeed, mothers with MMR don't pass on Measles antibodies to a baby in milk as they would with natural immunity.
Well put description of the generalities of the COVID situation.
Fuck bro, you won’t accept vaccines for anything less than death as a result of disease? So encephalitis, blindness, degenerative brain disease, in kids from measles, no problem? Testicular inflammation, sterility, meningitis, deafness, in kids from mumps, also bring it on? Jesus Christ you’re ignorant like a pile of bricks.
MMR is a live attenuated vaccine. I have no doubt you are far too retarded to know what that means. Here’s a hint: it’s not genetic material.
Please don’t have kids dude. The world is stupid enough without further propagation of your genes.
Look, you badly overestimate yourself. It really is odious. Do you have an "adult voice" you can use?
You still haven't answered the question. Why is MMR such a big win for you? Instead you questioned why you would be questioned and implied some kind of moral deficit. If you don't have a reason, that's fine. Just say it or say you don't have one.
This gets back to my point: it is the parents' responsibility to read the mandatorily-provided documentation about the risks of vaccination, and to compare that risk to the risk of the virus(es) for which that vaccine is being used. That's relative risk analysis, and as I said it's something humans are notoriously bad at developing said skill.
Again, don't want to be part of the societal need for herd immunity - then accept the liability said rejection brings.
Right, you wanted to take money from the unvaccinated to give to the vaccinated - hopefully you have a plan to demonstrate causation. Are you OK with taking money from the vaccine manufacturers when they injure someone? Because currently, that's not a possibility by law. Also: herd immunity works better - as far as I know universally - via natural infection. People who got covid unvaccinated had mucosal resistance after that which no one who took the shot had.
Also, let's say we deschedule everything. We haven't advised anyone to do anything. What prevents a parent from requesting MMR or Herpes, exactly? Why not fill the gap with information if you're looking for people to develop that risk assessment subtlety? Currently if it's on the list, people generally have to give it to their kid via school district mandates. Doesn't *that* fly in the face of your goal of parents having control via good risk assessment?
If you think back to one of the many things I said that you said were irrelevant or pointless, I had made a balanced risk assessment view of giving my kiddo the covid jab and my wife was more or less ignorant of everything I brought up. What I may not have said is that the school required it and I could only practically fight it if my wife were in it with me. Again, there I was looking at the possible benefit (none) and the possible harm (meh. I didn't think it was likely) and I told it to her straight: There's no reason to do this other than their say-so. Imagine if she also had the ability to perform a balanced risk assessment and we landed on the same side. After that point, we have to fight total nincompoops in the School District. Should parents have to fight to protect their kids from people with (shudder) Doctorates of Education on a medical question? I say no.
So you cherry pick a study implying that MRA vaccine helps increase longevity in pancreatic cancer and ignore all problems associated with Covid vaccine mandates and the gain of function that created the Covid virus.
How many cases of pancreatic cancer are there in comparison with the millions afflicted with complications of their use?
You seem to be casting an aspersion there. Best if luck eith that.
Ok. Lets talk greater good; the COVID shot was particularly helpful against alpha for old fat people, the group most endangered by COVID... and no one else. What waa the point in forcing everyobe to take a theraoy that didnt prevent tramsmission? Where is the greater good of taking the shot doesnt protect others?
The rise in cancer diagnoses can be framed in the Base Rate Fallacy, or the Accuracy Paradox. As more accurate testing is done which diagnoses cancer earlier, and more young people are tested using these methods, the rate of positive diagnoses will increase, but that does not indicate a rise in the rate of actual cancer. Not all who are diagnosed early may develop tumors that kill them (false positives) and not all who are treated will respond.
It does seem like there's a rise in specific types of cancer (e.g. colon), offsetting a decline in others (e.g. lung).
Are you saying doctors are scheduling tests for 20 year old people with no symptoms? ...because the hospital bought the apparatus and the administrator says "we need to bill on this thing or you can't keep your PA..." Or something. Is the existence of earlier diagnosis methods enough to spur healthy-seeming young people to be tested? "Bro, you gotta check out the new ass scanner. It's AI driven. It know how many times I ate pizza last year."
There's got to be some thing that gets healthy looking young patients in for a diagnosis or this idea doesn't work.
Pancreatic cancer has no symptoms until it’s too late. They test based on genetic factors, blood work and other comorbidity risks. And that testing actually works.
Come on David, all that science stuff is just a giant con job for the pharmaceutical companies. As noted in the comments, you must be on their payroll? When it comes to trump voters/supporters, their ability to make stuff up ranks them high in the top of their class.
Of course, they've learned well at the knee of the master, just say spew the shit, truth be damned.
Thanks for the great news; the tragedy is how far back the DOGE insanity will take us. When all is said and done, those first few months of Elon et al will be viewed as one of the most tragic of times in the trump era...and that screams volumes.
Well, this section will be lit up by those unable to understand relative risk.
It'll be,talking to my (now) ex about why the kiddo doesn't need the shot, accotding to the numbers of those who insist she does, all over again. Joy.
Life is full of risks, and being able to understand relative risk is an important skill that humans are absolutely terrible at developing.
Yes. The default is to maximalize for the feeling of assurance. Continuing the COVID response remniscence: When your government tries to maximalize for you via a combination of "guidance" and enforcement, you can feel a mistaken sense of safety if you are a maximizer. If i'd been a maximizer, there's a reasonable chance i'd still be married. Kiddo still was forced to take the shot with no positive statistical impact, thankfully without suffering injury, as my mental model predicted. BUT i had tried to talk a maximizer out of maximalization, and that, like everything else, has costs.
Such is life.
The default is to focus on one set of risks without accounting for the risks on the other side of the decision.
I don't know what you're talking about re being a maximizer as it is irrelevant to the point I am making.
Maximizer only looks at one risk set, pretends the other doesn’t exist. It was the point you made, just with a label I applied. It wasn’t that hard to figure out. Possibly the rambling story made you lose focus. I was married to a maximizer, I am a risk assessor. She thought her kid was going to die because her husband assessed the risks. Your command of English is… fantastic, but I’m starting to wonder if you spoke something else initially? It wasn’t hidden. My 14 year old daughter would have grasped we were talking about the same thing. She would have gotten it at 8. So if we are dealing with a second language issue, that’s fine. Just trying to figure out if this is incomprehension is real or not.
See, you don't understand relative risk though you try to approach it. When you say failing to evaluate a risk - do you mean a risk of unknowns, or a quantified risk that can be evaluated agains the other option(s)?
Sounds like you just have fear of the unknown, and fail to recognize there are unknowns on the other side of the equation too.
Instead of more funding were getting HHS blocking studies/reports showing that vaccination dropped emergency room visits for COVID by 50%.
https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/22/health/hhs-cdc-study-covid-19-vaccines?cid=ios_app
So to make a more topical response (yes big misread on my part. It's the protruding MAGA forehead that occasionally makes it difficult to read): COVID shot uptake has dropped from a high of 85% during the active mandates (they're still around, but they generally required 2 shots, and most people got their 2 shots and walked away sensibly) ... down to... well for kids it's south of 10% now. I think adults are around 15%. Only one band of the population wants them - probably hardcore progressives - but whichever group the most people still masking up alone in their car: that's the primary group. Additionally, Pfizer's 20k new person study had to be canceled (according to Pfizer) due to lack of interest. In an environment like that, how in blazes did visits get reduced by 50%. Such a big number, 50% That's gotta be alot, right? I think when i get to the source material, the answer is going to be something along the lines of "Well, we had (small order of magnitude) Covid visits to the ER in 2024 and we had (same small order, but half!) in 2025 and it was because of X thing we did with the process" or something - but not the increasingly benign aspect of the current strain of COVID, whichever one they're on now.
That's one way to engage in intentional fraud on the public and still be truthful. It's not a direct numeric claim so the reader can imagine something helpful to your case, based on the impressiveness of the percentage. 50% is amazing? Must have been a real, meaningfully direct "effect" the improvement was 50%.
Since 15% of the population is on the scale of 50 million (ooh, BIG number!) you can't get any bang out of saying "1000 covid emergency rooms visits in 2024, 500 in 2025, wow we are awesome". Even saying "10000" and "5000" wouldn't seem a good sell when you're deciding what to tell the press - not that there's any chance those are the numbers. But what definitely is a good sell is 50%.
The numbers could be 100 and 50 for all I know, I don't have actual sources yet.
Anyone know off the top of their head what that trick is called? Damned thing has a name. Definitely related to bookending.
Uh. I was denied access to a doctor while on covid. I waa forced to hit an emergency room with a secondary infection that was an obvious "here's yoir zpack, go sleep". - which is what i got 10 mins after being brought back. Dont you think that stat maybe deserves a little peek into the crosstabs since the treatment proticol was literally "go home until you turn blue" for those with actual covid issues and doctors who dared attempt to treat were brought up before licensure boards. I'd say youre solidly in the numbrrs and STILL not addtessing reality.
Nice anecdote: meanwhile, those numbers matter to making decisions for oneself and one's children.
Yeah, but until you walk the crosstabs, you dont know what youre looking at - assuming rich data was supplied - yiu only knpe thr intention of the compiler.. There are many reasons that could have changed, and you are assiuming the salutary one for your hypothesis. Look, have you ever piously told someome "correkatiom is mpt causation"? We all need a habit of tellng ourselves that when our priors are tweaked.
Additionally, why is that study useful? The covid shots had a salitary offect on alpha. This iz pointing to the narrow band of success of the therapy -in such a way as to leave me wondering ifvit iz structured to ignore the policy shift that occurred - vaccinated people were allpwed notmalish care. You dont seem to bs taking anything other than "an authority gave me a number" into account.
No one should be guided by that study, as youve described it. Its irrelevant at best. There never was another comparable moment of field efficacy for a covid shot. First version of the shot vs alpha was it, and the beneficuaries were, on average, old and fat. Children mever benefitted.
You seem to be unable to understand any of what I am talking about in these comments.
I'm unsure you understand what you're saying. Explain the utility of a study showing that five years ago the panic induced by a myopic and dishonest response to a real threat may have been reduced when doctors were allowed to FINALLY start treating, even if it was within the constraints of only treating with the gene therapy. What is the utility to the parent, as you stated? The therapy does nothing fir children. Its awesome to have a broad perspective - I don't think you do - but it has to be informed by context.
Thanks for showing the standard MAGA lack of care for life and inability to deal with relatively minor inconveniences, and again the overall lack of understanding of relative risk.
You seem to have a poor understanding of how exactly things went - which is that a novel respiratory virus swept the world, killed a heckuva lot of people before effective treatments were available.
And again, mRNA delivering a spike protein is not gene therapy.
Have a good day, sir.
Maga types don’t have the intellectual capacity to assess each situation based on its own merits. Which is why all vaccines are lumped together (hello, measles), and why anything with mRNA mechanism is also lumped together, be it covid or cancer treatment. Combined with their inability to understand science (like the difference btw mRNA and DNA), you’re left with a segment of society that puts the capital S in stupid.
Admirable ego-stroking irrelevance. Stroke on.
Blow me, knuckle dragger. Your retard is unbecoming.
Ah, someone else has a black belt in phone typing. I'll wait till you have the opportunity to make a more cogent reply.
The effort I put into a response is commensurate to the level of retard in the comment to which I am responding. Not complicated.
Fine, fine. Do YOU think we should be forcing people to be subjects in medical experiments? Do you think we should be forcing people to take particular medical treatments if they don't want to? That's the sort of thing we primitive knuckdraggers wonder. What's your answer, ubermench?
No, people shouldn’t be “forced” into medical experiments (like the Tuskegee syphilis study…which I’m sure you have spent much of your time decrying 😂).
As for vaccine mandates (like MMR), that’s where the concept of greater good comes into the equation (which maga retards are far too retarded to grasp).
I wish I could say the anti-vax thing is solely a MAGA phenomenon, but it predates Trump and MAGA.
The vow to not have anything with mRNA in it is funny though: guess they're never eating anything.
Yeah, again, friend. It's not anti-vax. That is a marketing term. They want medical freedom. They don't want to be forced. And I'm with 'em. It's fucking evil to be required to put something in your kid's arm that you don't trust. It's evil to be forced to accept it yourself. It's not complicated. Your view is downstream of a massive disinformation campaign. I think maybe you can land on the one thing they can't have: ok, maybe we shouldn't force people.
That, of course will make you an anti-vaxxer in their eyes, of course, so I advise against it.
Covid vax is a somewhat different category, because of its efficacy limitations and the discordant gradient of risk based on age.
Measles MMR vax rejection makes you a certified retard. Not trusting measles vax makes you a retard.
There is such a thing as the greater good. Not grasping that concept makes you a maga retard.
Wait, why is the MMR vaccine a no-brainer to you? Measles and Mumps aren't really killers. Not super familiar with Rubella. Is that one a serious killer?
I can tell you one issue people have with it: there's a suspicion that throwing that much genetic material at the immune system doesn't produce a durable immune response. And indeed, mothers with MMR don't pass on Measles antibodies to a baby in milk as they would with natural immunity.
Well put description of the generalities of the COVID situation.
Fuck bro, you won’t accept vaccines for anything less than death as a result of disease? So encephalitis, blindness, degenerative brain disease, in kids from measles, no problem? Testicular inflammation, sterility, meningitis, deafness, in kids from mumps, also bring it on? Jesus Christ you’re ignorant like a pile of bricks.
MMR is a live attenuated vaccine. I have no doubt you are far too retarded to know what that means. Here’s a hint: it’s not genetic material.
Please don’t have kids dude. The world is stupid enough without further propagation of your genes.
Look, you badly overestimate yourself. It really is odious. Do you have an "adult voice" you can use?
You still haven't answered the question. Why is MMR such a big win for you? Instead you questioned why you would be questioned and implied some kind of moral deficit. If you don't have a reason, that's fine. Just say it or say you don't have one.
This gets back to my point: it is the parents' responsibility to read the mandatorily-provided documentation about the risks of vaccination, and to compare that risk to the risk of the virus(es) for which that vaccine is being used. That's relative risk analysis, and as I said it's something humans are notoriously bad at developing said skill.
Again, don't want to be part of the societal need for herd immunity - then accept the liability said rejection brings.
Right, you wanted to take money from the unvaccinated to give to the vaccinated - hopefully you have a plan to demonstrate causation. Are you OK with taking money from the vaccine manufacturers when they injure someone? Because currently, that's not a possibility by law. Also: herd immunity works better - as far as I know universally - via natural infection. People who got covid unvaccinated had mucosal resistance after that which no one who took the shot had.
Also, let's say we deschedule everything. We haven't advised anyone to do anything. What prevents a parent from requesting MMR or Herpes, exactly? Why not fill the gap with information if you're looking for people to develop that risk assessment subtlety? Currently if it's on the list, people generally have to give it to their kid via school district mandates. Doesn't *that* fly in the face of your goal of parents having control via good risk assessment?
If you think back to one of the many things I said that you said were irrelevant or pointless, I had made a balanced risk assessment view of giving my kiddo the covid jab and my wife was more or less ignorant of everything I brought up. What I may not have said is that the school required it and I could only practically fight it if my wife were in it with me. Again, there I was looking at the possible benefit (none) and the possible harm (meh. I didn't think it was likely) and I told it to her straight: There's no reason to do this other than their say-so. Imagine if she also had the ability to perform a balanced risk assessment and we landed on the same side. After that point, we have to fight total nincompoops in the School District. Should parents have to fight to protect their kids from people with (shudder) Doctorates of Education on a medical question? I say no.
So you cherry pick a study implying that MRA vaccine helps increase longevity in pancreatic cancer and ignore all problems associated with Covid vaccine mandates and the gain of function that created the Covid virus.
How many cases of pancreatic cancer are there in comparison with the millions afflicted with complications of their use?
Are you funded by the pharmaceutical industry?
No, I happily debunk conspiracy theories for free.
You should comsider calling us anti-forced medical experimentation. It gets yiu the largest possible group pf people to lie about.
Cheers.
The arguments that I discussed were ones that I have encountered frequently.
Is this Racket? If I want to endure screeds I’ll just visit Facebook or LinkedIn.
Oh yeah, that fits. Cool.
You seem to be casting an aspersion there. Best if luck eith that.
Ok. Lets talk greater good; the COVID shot was particularly helpful against alpha for old fat people, the group most endangered by COVID... and no one else. What waa the point in forcing everyobe to take a theraoy that didnt prevent tramsmission? Where is the greater good of taking the shot doesnt protect others?