The 96% Doctor Vaxxed Lie

I have been hearing more and more from the pro vax crowd how 96% of all doctors are vaccinated. SO I decided to do a little digging and here is what I found.

Googling Doctors Vaccination Rate this is the first thing you see:

Jun 11, 2021
CHICAGO — The American Medical Association (AMA) today released a new survey (PDF) among practicing physicians that shows more than 96 percent of surveyed U.S. physicians have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19, with no significant difference in vaccination rates across regions.Jun 11, 2021

So lets look at the survey. Looks like out over 1 million US Doctors only 300 completed the survey. AMA Survey

Im no expert on surveys but I do know you really need to have a adequate sample size of the surveyed population. According to CHeck mark sample size calculator they really should have 2400 surveys. Checkmark calc

I'm really tired of the propaganda spins like this related to these vaccines.

a reply to: sirlancelot
ANd just think , that was June 2021 .
The number is probably 134% today.

a reply to: sirlancelot

So let me get this straight, you think this information is propaganda because it doesn't meet your non-expert opinion on an effective sample size? You do realize that is exactly the stance the anti-vaccination crowd takes right?

So are you saying the anecdotal and small study reports the anti-vaccination crowd references is also propaganda?

a reply to: sirlancelot

If a doctor wasn’t planning on taking the vax, why would they participate in the honey pot, I mean survey?

One of my closest friends is a doc. Just talked to him last night. They are forcing vaccines at his clinic. Thankfully, they let him out of it, due to his ‘newfound’ Christian beliefs.

a reply to: sirlancelot

Very interesting. I didn't know there was a site like Checkmark. Basically, I don't believe anything anymore. I call myself a Faithful Agnostic, which by my definition means I'm not Agnostic as it pertains to faith in God, but just everything else. Hell, I watched a video yesterday on how the ice-cream machines at McDonalds are rigged to fail. Really? (Oh, by the way, it's true!).

I studied Econometrics at University. I swear before God that it was the most difficult class I've ever taken (oh, and my instructor LITERALLY wrote the book on the subject...yay!). All the math aside, it really did open my eyes on the veracity (or lack thereof) of studies, polls, etc etc. If the study is not done properly (or ethically) you can more or less get any resultant you desire. Still, for the masses such results are powerful to the psyche and often taken as absolute truth.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: sirlancelot
ANd just think , that was June 2021 .
The number is probably 134% today.

No...just in Oklahoma where they have 180% vax rate.

a reply to: MDDoxs

You didn't get it straight .

Yes it is propaganda. Would they have showed the results if the amount from survey was 60 percent ? or 50 ? No ... They would've skipped the whole story and went to something else.

The problem is the sample size and brushing a whole entire group with it and pushing it with a misleading headline..

It should've read 96 percent of 300 doctors surveyed "

Not ..
"96% of physicians have been fully vaccinated for COVID-19"


This is propaganda. This is misleading. Its pretty simple concept.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: sirlancelot

So let me get this straight, you think this information is propaganda because it doesn't meet your non-expert opinion on an effective sample size? You do realize that is exactly the stance the anti-vaccination crowd takes right?

So are you saying the anecdotal and small study reports the anti-vaccination crowd references is also propaganda?

Read my above reply. I don't think that the question truly is whether or not the results are true and accurate, but rather that, whatever side you wish to believe, how do we really know?

a reply to: sirlancelot

Good post! S&F!
I received e-mails from the American Dental Association and the Academy of General Dentistry claiming that similarly high numbers of dentists are vax'd. I didn't bother trying to verify their numbers, but a good number of my colleagues, that I know of, are still holding off.
So, I'm not buying these numbers. It's just the propaganda machine at work.

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: sirlancelot

If a doctor wasn’t planning on taking the vax, why would they participate in the honey pot, I mean survey?

One of my closest friends is a doc. Just talked to him last night. They are forcing vaccines at his clinic. Thankfully, they let him out of it, due to his ‘newfound’ Christian beliefs.

Ha! Newfound Christian beliefs. That's funny. I have the oh so lovely diagnosis of Bi-Polar. I love it. Everytime I act like an ass and people are mad at me I say, sorry, I was having a manic episode.

a reply to: seedofchucky

Interesting little piece from Yale

The variability of a statistic is determined by the spread of its sampling distribution. In general, larger samples will have smaller variability. This is because as the sample size increases, the chance of observing extreme values decreases and the observed values for the statistic will group more closely around the mean of the sampling distribution. Furthermore, if the population size is significantly larger than the sample size, then the size of the population will not affect the variability of the sampling distribution (i.e., a sample of size 100 from a population of size 100,000 will have the same variability as a sample of size 100 from a population of size 1,000,000).

Link

Would you agree or disagree?

The Majority of American Physicians Remain Unvaccinated

However, the AAPS survey questions the results of the AMA survey as it reveals that a majority of physicians have declined COVID-19 shots.

The poll saw the participation of 700 physicians and highlights the fact that physician support for mass inoculation campaigns is not as unanimous as some assert. Eighty percent of unvaccinated physicians stated that the risk from the vaccines exceeds the risk of the disease . Thirty percent admitted that they had already contracted the infection.

Some of the other reasons cited by physicians for not getting vaccinated include unknown long-term effects of the vaccines, the experimental nature of the vaccines, reports of deaths following inoculation, blood clots among vaccinated people, use of aborted fetal tissue, and availability of effective early treatment.

“It is wrong to call a person who declines a shot an ‘anti-vaxxer’… Virtually no physicians are ‘anti-antibiotics’ or ‘anti-surgery,’ whereas all are opposed to treatments that they think are unnecessary, more likely to harm than to benefit an individual patient, or inadequately tested,” AAPS executive director Jane Orient said in a statement.

In addition to physicians, the AAPS also conducted a survey among 5,300 non-physicians, of which 2,548 said they were aware of the side effects of the vaccines, including blindness, paralysis, heart issues, seizures, amputation, and even death.

By money spent, the AMA is the nation’s third largest lobbying organization of the last 20 years, behind only the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors. By deploying powerful lobbying and misleading media campaigns, the AMA has opposed or hijacked nearly every health reform proposal of the last century, from Social Security to Medicare to the Affordable Care Act

That is from here.

Seems they have other motives other than the health of Americans.

a reply to: MetalThunder

Lol what a joke, I would love to see the results they claim to have collected. The AMA clearly presented their data, while this periodical makes unsubstantiated claims.

Just so you know, I took a survey of 1 billion doctors and I got a vaccination rate of 99.999999999999%. I am not going to show you anything, just need to take my word for it.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: seedofchucky

Interesting little piece from Yale

The variability of a statistic is determined by the spread of its sampling distribution. In general, larger samples will have smaller variability. This is because as the sample size increases, the chance of observing extreme values decreases and the observed values for the statistic will group more closely around the mean of the sampling distribution. Furthermore, if the population size is significantly larger than the sample size, then the size of the population will not affect the variability of the sampling distribution (i.e., a sample of size 100 from a population of size 100,000 will have the same variability as a sample of size 100 from a population of size 1,000,000).

Link

Would you agree or disagree?

I would disagree. By that logic the most accurate studies would have a sample size of 1.

a reply to: MDDoxs

Disagree. Pretty simple. It's still propaganda.

All they have to do is include the Number size of the sample in the headline to show the user the full picture..

Not just the snipped they wanna push for propaganda.

Not that difficult.

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: MetalThunder

Lol what a joke, I would love to see the results they claim to have collected. The AMA clearly presented their data, while this periodical makes unsubstantiated claims.

Just so you know, I took a survey of 1 billion doctors and I got a vaccination rate of 99.999999999999%. I am not going to show you anything, just need to take my word for it.

Getting triggered and deflecting doesn't change reality .. It's propaganda. They mislead with the headline on purpose and put the information of sample size where most people don't read. Why do you love propaganda so much ?

originally posted by: TheMirrorSelf

originally posted by: MDDoxs
a reply to: seedofchucky

Interesting little piece from Yale

The variability of a statistic is determined by the spread of its sampling distribution. In general, larger samples will have smaller variability. This is because as the sample size increases, the chance of observing extreme values decreases and the observed values for the statistic will group more closely around the mean of the sampling distribution. Furthermore, if the population size is significantly larger than the sample size, then the size of the population will not affect the variability of the sampling distribution (i.e., a sample of size 100 from a population of size 100,000 will have the same variability as a sample of size 100 from a population of size 1,000,000).

Link

Would you agree or disagree?

I would disagree. By that logic the most accurate studies would have a sample size of 1.

Lol, I laugh at you.

Never ceases to amaze me how fortunate we are to have so many big brain, 180+ IQ people on these boards.

I then challenge you to provide me with a academically accepted statically model that should have been used and why it is more accurate. I will wait.

originally posted by: seedofchucky
a reply to: MDDoxs

Disagree. Pretty simple. It's still propaganda.

All they have to do is include the Number size of the sample in the headline to show the user the full picture..

Not just the snipped they wanna push for propaganda.

Not that difficult.

So what I hear from you: "La La La La, cant hear you, la la la...Propaganda...la la la".

The sample size is in the report. You cant dismiss this article as propaganda because this article is lacking specifics in the headline. Geez, half the articles referenced on these boards are sensationalist or overly general. What do you want?

a reply to: MDDoxs

So let me get this straight, you think this information is propaganda because it doesn't meet your non-expert opinion on an effective sample size?

The OP isn't saying that at all. They pointed out a fact, and provided a link.

You do realize that is exactly the stance the anti-vaccination crowd takes right?

So, if you request honest, accurate data, then you're "anti-vaccine"?

So are you saying the anecdotal and small study reports the anti-vaccination crowd references is also propaganda?

The OP did not even suggest that. Not in any way.