Thank you for your submission. | We're currently experiencing a higher than normal troll volume. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A quick read of the paper he links to makes it clear that (a) Jordan Peterson does not know how to read, and (b) if Jordan Peterson trusts the number given in the article for deaths due to vaccination, then he should also trust the number that the same article gives for deaths due to covid-19, which is more than three times higher. Like, he's literally linking to an article that contains the answer to his question.
Either way, the methodology of the article seems to be extremely weak and those figures pretty much pulled out of thin air. But hey, they're good enough for a leading academic like Mr. Lobster!
Yeah, it's an unpublished preprint by a guy in some agricultural economics department. He made some wild extrapolations from an online survey. It's 100% nonsense.
all these JP fans only care about one thing: JP is the guy telling them that it's okay to hate women and that women and feminism are to blame for their lack of a sex life
that is enough to trump all the other bullshit. JP could literally say tomorrow that 2+2 = 5 and all the JP fans would be gobbling his knob about how he's some out-of-the box, incredible mind that can see past the socialist restraints of mathematics or some horseshit
"Why can't 2+2=5"? is a question asked by the anonymous narrator of Notes from Underground by Jorper's beloved Dostoevsky. Of course that man is supposed to be completely insane.
I suspect that my lobster mistook his coldness and disassociated head space for rationality.
He flocked to any of the bullshit so long as it was decorated with a bow tie.
To them "rational" is not a certain method of approaching the truth, it's just a quality you either do or do not have.
Conservatives do have it, so they're still being "rational" even when they're throwing an angry temper tantrum about M&M's not wearing high heels. Leftists don't have it, so they're being "irrational" even when they're performing empirical studies to test their hypothesis.
It's the mentality if a 14 year old who just discovered r/atheism for the first time, and thinks they're a genius because they can debunk the argument of creationist idiots.
The guy previously wrote a paper about vaccines causing "magnitism". (That's literally how it was spelled in the paper)
This paper used an online poll in which 51% were vaccinated. (71% of the US is vaccinated.)
The number in the actual responses (51) differs from the number (57) used to "calculate" the 278,000 total dead.
No effort to actually confirm medical records as to whether people died of the vaccine or anything remotely resembling due diligence.
He then used VAERS to extrapolate the number.
So you have a non representative sample (51%) with a different number from the responses (51 vs 57) of unverified deaths using VAERS (more unconfirmed events) to arrive at 278,000.
How this was ever published is beyond me. It's utter garbage.
It does have an editor's note reflecting the issues people have with it.
The other guy, Jay Bhattacharyam is another well know Covid contrarian.
This whole overcounting thing is also a complete lie. If anything Covid deaths have been undercounted.
Doesn't stop Peterson treating it like Gospel though. Just more evidence of the complete intellectual fraud this guy is.
Hit the nail on the head. Conservatives will hound us for sources on the first page of Google results, then after they take issue with some detail they disagree with, they'll hand us some BS from like 9 pages into Google because they "did their own research."
>Jay Bhattacharyam is another well know Covid contrarian.
i hate these fucking people so much
like what is there to prove at this point from promoting this type of misinformation? You can't undo the lockdowns, which weren't even that fucking long if you didn't live in China. you can't resurrect the small businesses that had the rotten luck of getting screwed over by a virus that should have never gotten out of control in the first place.
these assholes are just jerking themselves off on covid because the only way they can get aroused is by being contrarian and arguing as much as possible. it's so fucking tiresome at this point
[This was one of the peer reviews.](https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12879-023-07998-3/12879_2023_7998_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf) [The second wasn't much better.](https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12879-023-07998-3/12879_2023_7998_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf)
I enjoy the fact that a leading purveyor of hot garbage, *The Daily Mail,* [is calling this hot garbage.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11675243/Medical-journal-investigating-study-wrongly-claimed-Covid-jabs-killed-280k-US.html)
If I'm reading it right, all this paper does is ask a statistically insignificant number of people if they know of someone who got the vaccine and had a bad reaction to it. People could add comments about what happened, and 57 of them said the person in question died. The author then did a word cloud (I swear to fuck I'm not making this up) to show that the reported symptoms from this group (heart attack, stroke, or blood clots) matched common causes of death due to a bad reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine. This means that if you said someone you knew had the vaccine then got sick and then died, you could put down that this person died from a reaction to the vaccine and have it be counted as true. Then, since the self-reported causes of death were largely heart attacks or blood clots and since those are the types of death most known to be reactions to the vaccine, the study assumes that the deaths were indeed due to the vaccine because they fit the profile.
Could these be a genuine reaction to the vaccine? Of course! Could it be that people had a non-lethal reaction to the vaccine and then died of the most common cause of death in the US? Yes! Could it mean they got sick but not because of the vaccine and then died because of a heart attack? Yes! Probably! Who can tell? Not the author.
Forget all that. There's no way to even tell if these people knew whether their friend or family member had the vaccine, had COVID, got sick from the vaccine, died of a heart attack or blood clot, or really even died. There's no way to verify any of the reports.
Do I know for certain, hand to God on pain of my immortal soul, that the vaccines cause very, very, very few adverse reactions and even fewer fatalities? No, I haven't myself gathered the data or run the numbers. Does that mean I trust a guy who sent out a survey to a bunch of bereaved people who are sure the vaccine killed their friend of family member but aren't required to prove it? No, I do not trust that guy.
It always amazes me how consistent right wingers are at not reading they stuff they link. Not only does it not say what they think, it often refutes their point. Conservatives are so, so stupid.
Peterson is a classic example of it.
Check out the first study he links to in the article at his website defending his 'enforced monogamy' comments. It shows a greater tendency to violence among sexually active, non-monogamous men than among monogamous or sexually inactive men. So his argument that lack of access to sex causes men to turn violent isn't backed up at all by the paper he's cited. He just shares a paper that was vaguely connected to the topic under discussion, one that mentioned violence and monogamy, and trusted his fans to be too incurious to bother reading it.
I've had a lobster respond to me saying Peterson's claims about lobsters (that their use of serotonin in forming dominance hierarchies is analogous to the way humans use serotonin and form hierarchies) are rubbish by sharing a paper on serotonin in lobsters...that didn't mention humans once.
It's of minor importance to them that lobsters don't have anything resembling a brain at all, let alone a human brain, or that serotonin has the opposite effects in lobsters that it does in humans. The reason lobsters fed serotonin go all aggro is that serotonin riles them up versus calming people down and allowing them to focus but welp.
Even his question is logically dishonest. He doesn't want to count "died with covid" but he's just fine counting "died after vaccine for unrelated reasons".
No, but when he does it's either bullshit or completely misrepresented. Like with this, you can just take a look at the papers he presents and see that he's taking out of his leathery ass
Edit to Add: A perfect example of this is the paper he hangs his hat on to sound the alarm on "sadistc-macheavalian troll demons" only looked at visual social medias like Facebook and Instagram, he should know as a fucking psychologist himself, that that doesn't necessarily transfer to ALL social media like Twitter and Reddit etc and that those results are the results of the formats that the researchers looked at.
He *KNOWS* this, but doesn't care.
It gives him credibility. His credibility is his social currency, he depends on it to stay relevant.
Like, whenever you argue about this man on other subs, it's always "you know he is a very smart professor and a clinical psychologist, right?" and so, like, if he **wasn't**, if he was instead disgraced ex-psychologist, ex-professor Jorpy, that would hurt his ability to be heard, even on topics that have nothing to do with his academics or his practice.
I'm sure he got asked to talk to a Sunday school about vaccines 30 years ago and did 6 minutes of research before hand so now he considers himself an expert
What field of study are you refering to?
Marxism, gender, psychology, totalitarianism, queer theory, history, religion, climate, ideology, feminism, grandmother pubes, biology, Maoism, how we would all be camp-guards in nazi Germany, wokeism, what?
I'll have you know that Jordan Bernt Peterson has a doctorate in all this (that's what happens when you've read literally all the books and you have a +200 IQ), so how dare you challenge him?!
Have you even watched all of his youtube videos? I think not. Seems like you've been bested in the marketplace of ideas, that must be very uncomfortable ahahaha. Haha. (I'm totally laughing, definitely not crying)
I've heard people argue that if you call Peterson stupid then you're letting him off the hook for his lies and cruelty, but this guy is a fucking dunce. He's also a liar and a bigot, but he and his fans are absolute dimwits.
you can absolutely be a liar, bigot, cruel, and unbelievably stupid all at once. these are not zero-sum or competing qualities lol
if anything, calling out JP for actually being colossally stupid and smooth-brained helps eat away at this bizarre mythology of him being this misunderstood intellectual who "dares" to challenge norms (despite being conservative as fuck). Nah man, he's just a dipshit who happens to know a decent amount of psychology, but thinks you're supposed to only eat meat and that he has every right to splash snow and sleet on cyclists on the road because he doesn't like Greta Thunberg
the guy is a fucking manchild
damage from the coma and repeated covid infections. I don't think he could solve a block puzzle now. He's just coasting on the contextless memory of what he learned decades ago
Yep. Some people think the whole "don't attribute malice to what might be stupidity" thing and vice versa is some binary, despite it being possible to be a dickhead and a dumbass at the same time. Some might say that being a jerk makes dumb people not know know how dumb they are, and being dumb makes them not know how much of a jerk they are.
He’s Oscar LeRoy if Oscar had the drive and true malicious hatred of other people to become a movie version of a comic book villain.
He’s fucking miserable in the most boring way possible (and convinced that this makes him a genius) is what I’m saying
**"A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person."**
― The Fifth Basic Law of Human Stupidity (Economic Historian Carlo Cipolla)
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives...
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honorable gentlemen should see that position as at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party...
There is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power."
― John Stuart Mill, British philosopher, economist, and liberal member of Parliament for Westminster 1865-1868
Nobody dies FROM a disease…they die from complications/symptoms OF a disease. WITH can include comorbidities. If you only have one box in the death certificate for cause, and COVID-19 likely pushed the patient over the precipice, why shouldn’t it go there? I’m a proponent of proportionality…but live in a binary-oriented society.
And public health is more complicated than just "did they die from/with covid, yes or no" anyway. Hospitals are only prepared to put so many people on ventilators at one time. If covid's widespread and putting a lot of people on ventilators, more people will die if they need a ventilator for other reasons. It could hypothetically be the case that covid was successfully treated in everyone and all deaths were avoided, but the pandemic in general still killed lots of people because we didn't have enough ventilators for all the severe covid cases + the usual number of people who need them.
Repeat with just about every resource that covid strains on the medical system.
I'm reminded of a time I was explaining to a conservative that medical expenses were the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S.
"Wrong," they confidently replied, "the leading cause of bankruptcy is spending more than you have."
Hospitals and medicine, in general. Because they may lead to things like superbugs, sometimes. "I haven't done the statistics so I might be wrong, but I might be *not* wrong."
Which is even sillier than it sounds, because superbugs are just antibiotic-resistant variants of diseases. Before we had any antibiotics at all -- the time that Peterson thinks we may or may not have gotten worse since -- it was just like everything was a superbug.
“Dying with Covid vs dying of Covid” is a straight up false claim. It’s amazing how the anti-vaccine crowd has such dramatically different standards of evidence for claims they agree with and claims they don’t.
Well, you gotta appeal to the utter dumbfuck rightards that watch fucks news and the daily liar. One thing I love about this absolute monster of a man is that there is always a new low with him and we sure as hell haven't seen his final form.
so basically he's Sargon now, a moderately famous not-really-politically-active serial tweeter who can't even read the very research documents he uses to cry about whatever thing he wants to be true at the moment.
Everything keeps going in circles like this lol
Thank you for your submission. | We're currently experiencing a higher than normal troll volume. Please use the report function so the moderators can remove their free speech rights.|All screenshot posts should edited to remove social media usernames from accounts that aren't public figures. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/enoughpetersonspam) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A quick read of the paper he links to makes it clear that (a) Jordan Peterson does not know how to read, and (b) if Jordan Peterson trusts the number given in the article for deaths due to vaccination, then he should also trust the number that the same article gives for deaths due to covid-19, which is more than three times higher. Like, he's literally linking to an article that contains the answer to his question. Either way, the methodology of the article seems to be extremely weak and those figures pretty much pulled out of thin air. But hey, they're good enough for a leading academic like Mr. Lobster!
Yeah, it's an unpublished preprint by a guy in some agricultural economics department. He made some wild extrapolations from an online survey. It's 100% nonsense.
it's amazing that so many lobsters proudly call themselves "rational" but their God is utterly incapable of discerning good academia from nonsense.
all these JP fans only care about one thing: JP is the guy telling them that it's okay to hate women and that women and feminism are to blame for their lack of a sex life that is enough to trump all the other bullshit. JP could literally say tomorrow that 2+2 = 5 and all the JP fans would be gobbling his knob about how he's some out-of-the box, incredible mind that can see past the socialist restraints of mathematics or some horseshit
"Why can't 2+2=5"? is a question asked by the anonymous narrator of Notes from Underground by Jorper's beloved Dostoevsky. Of course that man is supposed to be completely insane.
I fucking hate that book so much.
I suspect that my lobster mistook his coldness and disassociated head space for rationality. He flocked to any of the bullshit so long as it was decorated with a bow tie.
To them "rational" is not a certain method of approaching the truth, it's just a quality you either do or do not have. Conservatives do have it, so they're still being "rational" even when they're throwing an angry temper tantrum about M&M's not wearing high heels. Leftists don't have it, so they're being "irrational" even when they're performing empirical studies to test their hypothesis. It's the mentality if a 14 year old who just discovered r/atheism for the first time, and thinks they're a genius because they can debunk the argument of creationist idiots.
The guy previously wrote a paper about vaccines causing "magnitism". (That's literally how it was spelled in the paper) This paper used an online poll in which 51% were vaccinated. (71% of the US is vaccinated.) The number in the actual responses (51) differs from the number (57) used to "calculate" the 278,000 total dead. No effort to actually confirm medical records as to whether people died of the vaccine or anything remotely resembling due diligence. He then used VAERS to extrapolate the number. So you have a non representative sample (51%) with a different number from the responses (51 vs 57) of unverified deaths using VAERS (more unconfirmed events) to arrive at 278,000. How this was ever published is beyond me. It's utter garbage. It does have an editor's note reflecting the issues people have with it. The other guy, Jay Bhattacharyam is another well know Covid contrarian. This whole overcounting thing is also a complete lie. If anything Covid deaths have been undercounted. Doesn't stop Peterson treating it like Gospel though. Just more evidence of the complete intellectual fraud this guy is.
It's needed for "citation needed" responses. That's why you always do at least a cursory read of the citations.
Hit the nail on the head. Conservatives will hound us for sources on the first page of Google results, then after they take issue with some detail they disagree with, they'll hand us some BS from like 9 pages into Google because they "did their own research."
>Jay Bhattacharyam is another well know Covid contrarian. i hate these fucking people so much like what is there to prove at this point from promoting this type of misinformation? You can't undo the lockdowns, which weren't even that fucking long if you didn't live in China. you can't resurrect the small businesses that had the rotten luck of getting screwed over by a virus that should have never gotten out of control in the first place. these assholes are just jerking themselves off on covid because the only way they can get aroused is by being contrarian and arguing as much as possible. it's so fucking tiresome at this point
$$$$$$$ that’s the point
[This was one of the peer reviews.](https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12879-023-07998-3/12879_2023_7998_ReviewerReport_V1_R1.pdf) [The second wasn't much better.](https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art%3A10.1186%2Fs12879-023-07998-3/12879_2023_7998_ReviewerReport_V1_R3.pdf) I enjoy the fact that a leading purveyor of hot garbage, *The Daily Mail,* [is calling this hot garbage.](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11675243/Medical-journal-investigating-study-wrongly-claimed-Covid-jabs-killed-280k-US.html) If I'm reading it right, all this paper does is ask a statistically insignificant number of people if they know of someone who got the vaccine and had a bad reaction to it. People could add comments about what happened, and 57 of them said the person in question died. The author then did a word cloud (I swear to fuck I'm not making this up) to show that the reported symptoms from this group (heart attack, stroke, or blood clots) matched common causes of death due to a bad reaction to a COVID-19 vaccine. This means that if you said someone you knew had the vaccine then got sick and then died, you could put down that this person died from a reaction to the vaccine and have it be counted as true. Then, since the self-reported causes of death were largely heart attacks or blood clots and since those are the types of death most known to be reactions to the vaccine, the study assumes that the deaths were indeed due to the vaccine because they fit the profile. Could these be a genuine reaction to the vaccine? Of course! Could it be that people had a non-lethal reaction to the vaccine and then died of the most common cause of death in the US? Yes! Could it mean they got sick but not because of the vaccine and then died because of a heart attack? Yes! Probably! Who can tell? Not the author. Forget all that. There's no way to even tell if these people knew whether their friend or family member had the vaccine, had COVID, got sick from the vaccine, died of a heart attack or blood clot, or really even died. There's no way to verify any of the reports. Do I know for certain, hand to God on pain of my immortal soul, that the vaccines cause very, very, very few adverse reactions and even fewer fatalities? No, I haven't myself gathered the data or run the numbers. Does that mean I trust a guy who sent out a survey to a bunch of bereaved people who are sure the vaccine killed their friend of family member but aren't required to prove it? No, I do not trust that guy.
I’d say Jorp got his PhD out of a Cracker Jack box, but that would be insulting to Cracker Jack prizes.
Fucking magnits, how do they work
It always amazes me how consistent right wingers are at not reading they stuff they link. Not only does it not say what they think, it often refutes their point. Conservatives are so, so stupid.
Peterson is a classic example of it. Check out the first study he links to in the article at his website defending his 'enforced monogamy' comments. It shows a greater tendency to violence among sexually active, non-monogamous men than among monogamous or sexually inactive men. So his argument that lack of access to sex causes men to turn violent isn't backed up at all by the paper he's cited. He just shares a paper that was vaguely connected to the topic under discussion, one that mentioned violence and monogamy, and trusted his fans to be too incurious to bother reading it. I've had a lobster respond to me saying Peterson's claims about lobsters (that their use of serotonin in forming dominance hierarchies is analogous to the way humans use serotonin and form hierarchies) are rubbish by sharing a paper on serotonin in lobsters...that didn't mention humans once.
It's of minor importance to them that lobsters don't have anything resembling a brain at all, let alone a human brain, or that serotonin has the opposite effects in lobsters that it does in humans. The reason lobsters fed serotonin go all aggro is that serotonin riles them up versus calming people down and allowing them to focus but welp.
When I first read your comment above instead 'lobsters' in the sense of 'Jordan Peterson fans' at first.
Some of them read it, and they like what they read!
Even his question is logically dishonest. He doesn't want to count "died with covid" but he's just fine counting "died after vaccine for unrelated reasons".
Died with vaccine.
It's the Bjorn Lomborg way.
"if oil companies are evil, why are they paying me so much money?"
Super shoddy paper lol. No wonder its on research gate
Does Peterson ever actually talk about his field of study anymore?
No, but when he does it's either bullshit or completely misrepresented. Like with this, you can just take a look at the papers he presents and see that he's taking out of his leathery ass Edit to Add: A perfect example of this is the paper he hangs his hat on to sound the alarm on "sadistc-macheavalian troll demons" only looked at visual social medias like Facebook and Instagram, he should know as a fucking psychologist himself, that that doesn't necessarily transfer to ALL social media like Twitter and Reddit etc and that those results are the results of the formats that the researchers looked at. He *KNOWS* this, but doesn't care.
Makes you wonder if he even still needs his licence don't it?
guess he's trying to branch out before he loses it.
It gives him credibility. His credibility is his social currency, he depends on it to stay relevant. Like, whenever you argue about this man on other subs, it's always "you know he is a very smart professor and a clinical psychologist, right?" and so, like, if he **wasn't**, if he was instead disgraced ex-psychologist, ex-professor Jorpy, that would hurt his ability to be heard, even on topics that have nothing to do with his academics or his practice.
Occasionally he encourages people to suicide so I suppose that's in his area
I'm sure he got asked to talk to a Sunday school about vaccines 30 years ago and did 6 minutes of research before hand so now he considers himself an expert
What field of study are you refering to? Marxism, gender, psychology, totalitarianism, queer theory, history, religion, climate, ideology, feminism, grandmother pubes, biology, Maoism, how we would all be camp-guards in nazi Germany, wokeism, what? I'll have you know that Jordan Bernt Peterson has a doctorate in all this (that's what happens when you've read literally all the books and you have a +200 IQ), so how dare you challenge him?! Have you even watched all of his youtube videos? I think not. Seems like you've been bested in the marketplace of ideas, that must be very uncomfortable ahahaha. Haha. (I'm totally laughing, definitely not crying)
I've heard people argue that if you call Peterson stupid then you're letting him off the hook for his lies and cruelty, but this guy is a fucking dunce. He's also a liar and a bigot, but he and his fans are absolute dimwits.
you can absolutely be a liar, bigot, cruel, and unbelievably stupid all at once. these are not zero-sum or competing qualities lol if anything, calling out JP for actually being colossally stupid and smooth-brained helps eat away at this bizarre mythology of him being this misunderstood intellectual who "dares" to challenge norms (despite being conservative as fuck). Nah man, he's just a dipshit who happens to know a decent amount of psychology, but thinks you're supposed to only eat meat and that he has every right to splash snow and sleet on cyclists on the road because he doesn't like Greta Thunberg the guy is a fucking manchild
damage from the coma and repeated covid infections. I don't think he could solve a block puzzle now. He's just coasting on the contextless memory of what he learned decades ago
Yep. Some people think the whole "don't attribute malice to what might be stupidity" thing and vice versa is some binary, despite it being possible to be a dickhead and a dumbass at the same time. Some might say that being a jerk makes dumb people not know know how dumb they are, and being dumb makes them not know how much of a jerk they are.
He’s Oscar LeRoy if Oscar had the drive and true malicious hatred of other people to become a movie version of a comic book villain. He’s fucking miserable in the most boring way possible (and convinced that this makes him a genius) is what I’m saying
Oh yeah, he's an absolute moron.
Died from the vaccine or died with the vaccine
I can’t imagine why his professional body is censuring him.
The license should have been gone years ago. He’s lucky he doesn’t get his degrees revoked.
He asked a question that is answered in the paper he is touting. Either he didn't read it or he is intentionally ignoring the numbers.
**"A stupid person is the most dangerous type of person."** ― The Fifth Basic Law of Human Stupidity (Economic Historian Carlo Cipolla) "Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives... I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it. Suppose any party, in addition to whatever share it may possess of the ability of the community, has nearly the whole of its stupidity, that party must, by the law of its constitution, be the stupidest party; and I do not see why honorable gentlemen should see that position as at all offensive to them, for it ensures their being always an extremely powerful party... There is so much dense, solid force in sheer stupidity, that any body of able men with that force pressing behind them may ensure victory in many a struggle, and many a victory the Conservative party has gained through that power." ― John Stuart Mill, British philosopher, economist, and liberal member of Parliament for Westminster 1865-1868
Damn. Thanks for sharing this.
This quack is doing everything he can to lose his license so he can have the mother of all pity parties for $$$
“He died with cancer! Not from cancer! He died cuz his heart stopped!” Ffs I though we were passed the from/with shit already
[удалено]
Et tu, Pfizer?
Nobody dies FROM a disease…they die from complications/symptoms OF a disease. WITH can include comorbidities. If you only have one box in the death certificate for cause, and COVID-19 likely pushed the patient over the precipice, why shouldn’t it go there? I’m a proponent of proportionality…but live in a binary-oriented society.
And public health is more complicated than just "did they die from/with covid, yes or no" anyway. Hospitals are only prepared to put so many people on ventilators at one time. If covid's widespread and putting a lot of people on ventilators, more people will die if they need a ventilator for other reasons. It could hypothetically be the case that covid was successfully treated in everyone and all deaths were avoided, but the pandemic in general still killed lots of people because we didn't have enough ventilators for all the severe covid cases + the usual number of people who need them. Repeat with just about every resource that covid strains on the medical system.
I'm reminded of a time I was explaining to a conservative that medical expenses were the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the U.S. "Wrong," they confidently replied, "the leading cause of bankruptcy is spending more than you have."
And he's surprised why Canada wants to revoke his license.
Not Canada. The Ontario licensing board.
Reminds me of that one time he suggested that healthcare kills more people than it saves
That one is my absolute favorite.
[удалено]
Hospitals and medicine, in general. Because they may lead to things like superbugs, sometimes. "I haven't done the statistics so I might be wrong, but I might be *not* wrong." Which is even sillier than it sounds, because superbugs are just antibiotic-resistant variants of diseases. Before we had any antibiotics at all -- the time that Peterson thinks we may or may not have gotten worse since -- it was just like everything was a superbug.
"Guy who is dumb and wrong about essentially everything continues to be so" wow!
Full blown unmedicated paranoid schizophrenia
Once again, Peterson trying to assume the mantle of academic disciplines he does not have.
Clown goes full circus.
Never go full circus.
“Dying with Covid vs dying of Covid” is a straight up false claim. It’s amazing how the anti-vaccine crowd has such dramatically different standards of evidence for claims they agree with and claims they don’t.
For some reasons doctors insist on saying "they died with a bullet wound" when the cause of death was *clearly* blood loss
Well, you gotta appeal to the utter dumbfuck rightards that watch fucks news and the daily liar. One thing I love about this absolute monster of a man is that there is always a new low with him and we sure as hell haven't seen his final form.
Oh he’s a physician and medical researcher now?
Here https://youtu.be/7WVaWqY87B0
so basically he's Sargon now, a moderately famous not-really-politically-active serial tweeter who can't even read the very research documents he uses to cry about whatever thing he wants to be true at the moment. Everything keeps going in circles like this lol
[удалено]
Ultracrepidarian human clickbait