Originally Posted by blueash

Reading comprehension, please. I'll once again repeat the statement which I quoted from the CDC...
Gun violence is in the top five causes of death for people from ages 1 to 64.

Now tell me again how I got it wrong. What you listed as the top five, correctly by the way, are deaths for ALL AGES and that means as most Americans die after age 64 that those diseases are what cause deaths in the elderly.

See post 50, 57 and 61 for what I actually wrote as opposed to what you claim I wrote.

Thanks for not correcting me.

This is the CDC mission statement according to them.

—CDC works to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. —

Notice it does not say just for those under 65. The age range under 65 is used to compute YPLL which is years productive life lost. Totally different animal. Any sub group could be chosen to make any point for a political narrative. For example should the CDC investigate why blacks are only 12% of the population but commit 36% of the violent crimes, rape robbery mainly against each other. Are they just the “super predators” as a former VP once stated.

So you chose the incorrect age range to make your point. In other words you stated an hypotheses then chose data that made it work (maybe).That’s a no-no in statistics. So like it or not gun violence is not within the top five causes of death unless, of course, you live in Chicago where there are strict gun control laws. LOL

This year the woke CDC is pressing liberal gun control for the first time in decades. The first move by every dictatorship is to disarm the public. Ironic that they just provided our enemy the Taliban with about 500,000 US firearms.
———————

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) will be restarting its dormant "gun violence" research program to address the "epidemic" of firearm deaths and injuries, reported the Daily Wire.

"Something has to be done about this," said CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. "Now is the time — it's pedal to the metal time."

She said the health services agency would branch from issuing COVID-19 recommendations to the issue of gun control for the first time in "decades."

[Ben Franklin]

[MorTech]

What "studies" do you "believe"...And why? Do you still watch the idiot box? Read idiot "newspapers"? What's you're CV?

There was never a time when wait staff in TV weren't complaining about rude retirees. Now it is just intolerable.

Israel had forced vaccination...Israeli studies are a good place to start.

I like this...Warning for virgin ears: Foul Language.

Jack McBrayer & Triumph Visit Chicago's Weiner's Circle | CONAN on TBS - YouTube

[lkagele]

Originally Posted by MorTech

What "studies" do you "believe"...And why? Do you still watch the idiot box? Read idiot "newspapers"? What's you're CV?

There was never a time when wait staff in TV weren't complaining about rude retirees. Now it is just intolerable.

Israel had forced vaccination...Israeli studies are a good place to start.

I like this...Warning for virgin ears: Foul Language.

Jack McBrayer & Triumph Visit Chicago's Weiner's Circle | CONAN on TBS - YouTube

Now that's funny. Very good.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by unialimon

I can hardly wait to read these posts in 5 years.

Didn't you hear? The world will end due to Global Warming by then............. We won't be around to read these posts.

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

It's not political anything. A PERSON who was known on the radio - someone who his listeners actually listened to, whose advice they often took, who presented his opinion in a way that convinced people to believe him...

Instructed his listeners not to vaccinate.

And then he died from the disease he refused to vaccinate against.

But he didn't die until after he convinced a lot of people to follow in his footsteps and refuse to vaccinate.

If he was a card-carrying Communist, I'd have the same opinion. If he was the proven leader of Antifa, I'd have the same opinion. If he was the president of the Democratic National Committee, I'd have the same opinion. If he was a die-hard staunch independent (as I am) I'd have the same opinion.

He pushed a MEDICAL (not political) agenda on a lot of gullible people, believed this MEDICAL agenda, obeyed the medical agenda, and died as a result of his medical agenda.

And people STILL think they should reject the vaccine, because people like him convinced them of it.

Well......this guy is sending his message from the grave now but his message surely has changed. Only people who have any kind of smarts should realize now that they should, just maybe, reconsider the message this guy had put out there. Maybe, just maybe, he was wrong..........DEAD WRONG!

[coffeebean]

Originally Posted by stanley

Where is that statistic?

Does this work?

https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/p...ths_2010-a.pdf

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

found this post on FB from a past colleague who worked in the hospital with CoachK and who is highly educated . . .

“Do your research!!!”
Here’s the thing. Research is a learned skill; it is hard, it is nuanced and complex, and it is true that the majority of people would not even know where to begin or even HOW to do [their own] research.
Research is NOT:
Googling, scrolling your FB newsfeed, or watching YouTube or 4Chan to search for the results you are hoping to find to be “true.” These are called confirmation biases, and are quickly and easily ruled out when doing actual research.
A post credited to Linda Gamble Spadaro, a licensed mental health counselor in Florida, sums this up quite well:
“Please stop saying you researched it.
You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do so.
Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies?
Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them?
No? Then you didn’t…research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.”
This doesn’t even go into institutional review boards (IRB’s), also known as independent ethics committees, ethical review boards, or touch on peer-review, or meta-analyses.
To sum it up, a healthy dose of skepticism is/can be a good thing…as long as we are also applying it to those things we wish/think to be true, and not just those things we choose to be skeptical towards, or in denial of.
Most importantly, though, is to apply our best critical thinking skills to ensure we are doing our best to suss out the facts from the fiction, the myths, and outright BS in pseudoscience and politics.
Misinformation is being used as a tool of war and to undermine our public health, and it is up to each of us to fight against it."

Ironic that a FB post is used as the definitive word on the meaning of research. I’ll remain skeptical until I see a complete bibliography, etc. LOL