|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 12, 2021 20:25:37 GMT -6
Matt - I LOVE hearing all the reasons to discredit the source when it's message is against the mainstream. Makes life more interesting and conspiratorial.  Fraud, crackpot, vet, whatever. Makes for interesting times, no? I say let everyone have a voice. I don't need youtube, facebook, IG or the "news" services determining what is and what isn't truth. Let the chips fall where they may. The amount of political and medical "cleansing" has reached epic proportion. I think it's not a far reach to call it...well, you know history. If I recall correctly, you've mentioned several times there were no real studies on Ivermectin so we should not give it credence as a treatment - forgive me if I'm recalling incorrectly. But now in June 2021, that looks like that is changing almost daily.... Certainly Dr. Kory and his organization (forget their name) is onboard with using it as a prophylactic AND early treatment to pretty much stop deaths from Covid. Do you have any recent studies or statements on Ivermectin usage from the NIH. They've had 6 months since this testimony. I would expect them to be anti-Ivermectin, but I'd be interested anyway. Science growing and changing as we speak. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 12, 2021 20:47:21 GMT -6
It’s not discrediting the source to point out when people have a history of fraud. Sometimes a lone voice is the line voice of reason. Sometimes it’s a crack pot. Where are those docs we talked about today? Have they been vindicated?
As for ivermectin. What you’re describing is how it works. People do research, and they publish. There were a lot of papers published on HCQ and ivermectin early on. I actually talked about HCQ on here way way way back a as a potential treatment. A lot of those papers showed zero benefit, zip, nada. Some even showed harm. But again, that’s how it works, and that’s why you do meta analysis and don’t consider any one study (could be poorly constructed, fraudulent, or erroneous) or any one source (could be a liar or a fraud). You can’t take the studies you like and throw out the ones you don’t. And you can’t fault people responsible for making public health decisions for being conservative. There is a reason medicine moves slowly.
It’s irresponsible to assume anything else. It’s irresponsible to assume that the CDC saying “we don’t have any evidence this works” is equivalent to saying “it absolutely doesn’t work” or worse “we don’t care if it works because we want to make money on new drugs”.
I haven’t looked at all of the studies on ivermectin. The last time I looked in earnest was last year, and at the time it was basically all noise no signal. And now it doesn’t matter because we have a vaccine that works. (Which is a good thing and a miracle of modern medicine)
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 12, 2021 20:52:56 GMT -6
I haven’t looked at all of the studies on ivermectin. The last time I looked in earnest was last year, and at the time it was basically all noise no signal. And now it doesn’t matter because we have a vaccine that works. (Which is a good thing and a miracle of modern medicine) That is certainly the correct mainstream opinion. No need to offer any dissenting opinion to yours. It will only be minimized or scrubbed. Have a nice evening. I mean that sincerely. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 13, 2021 6:54:31 GMT -6
This is a very logical discussion that I think is worth everyone's time if you can spare 15 minutes or so:
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 14, 2021 11:32:25 GMT -6
The smoking gun revealed?
|
|
|
|
Post by rowmat on Jun 15, 2021 8:57:51 GMT -6
This is a very logical discussion that I think is worth everyone's time if you can spare 15 minutes or so: Apparently YouTube decided otherwise! The entire interview is available on Bitchute. www.bitchute.com/video/qHjNQIynVb5O/ |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 15, 2021 9:24:10 GMT -6
This is a very logical discussion that I think is worth everyone's time if you can spare 15 minutes or so: Apparently YouTube decided otherwise! The entire interview is available on Bitchute. www.bitchute.com/video/qHjNQIynVb5O/This is getting so ridiculous! Thank you for posting the other link. I still say that in a discussion like this where you have a medical doctor that has treated covid patients all through the pandemic and a scientist(evolutionary biologist) there is no one on staff at any social media platform that has the expertise necessary to decide if what they are saying is "harmful" or not. This hurts the discussion and makes it more likely for conspiracies to pop up, not less. This one probably won't last long either but it is a long form discussion including the inventor of mRNA technology(Dr. Robert Malone). I'll include the chapter markers below so anyone interested can jump around to specific topics. It covers most, if not all of what we've discussed here. Anyway, get it while you can LOL. Timestamps: 00:00 Introductions 02:20 This must be discussed 03:13 Will herd immunity be reached? 07:58 Spike protein is very dangerous 13:45 FDA knew it could be toxic if it didn't stay stuck 18:09 Vaccine sufferers censored 23:26 Reviewing the FDA data package 26:41 Corners were cut 27:52 Steve looking at VAERS 32:37 Robert's friends at the FDA and the emergency use authorisation 37:38 Risk benefit and quality life years 40:18 Alternative to vaccines 44:19 Mask wearing RCT 45:28 Three anomalies around vaccines 46:05 Fluvoxamine trials 51:00 Two million dollar offer and the NIH 52:13 Robert's view of the NIH 53:00 Regulatory capture 54:41 Fauci's emails 56:30 Merck on Ivermectin 59:24 Emergent phenomenon 01:01:42 Vaccine deaths 01:03:24 Tess Lawrie's vaccine safety data 01:04:43 Difference between the gene therapy vaccines 01:06:40 Self reported deaths from vaccines 01:09:18 Adverse reactions 01:17:12 Robert on V-safe database 01:19:30 Social media censorship 01:22:20 Steve's experience with denial 01:24:17 Two teams 01:28:20 "Don't come back until your lips are blue" 01:30:52 "Treat people early with drugs" 01:32:11 Ignoring frontline doctors 01:35:39 Financial incentives 01:37:28 Response to demand for RCT on ivermectin 01:38:39 Robert's personal experience with repurposing drugs 01:40:52 Mink and ferrets lab research 01:43:53 Robert on animal model for COVID treatment 01:46:33 Ivermectin works 01:49:13 Repurposing drugs 01:52:17 Doctors ignoring treatments 01:55:31 Effective treatments for long haulers 01:56:45 Robert's response on incentives and hospital liability 02:01:42 Additional antiviral and Gilead overlooking it 02:03:13 Communication is forbidden 02:04:53 Using antivirals as soon as virus presents 02:06:41 Multiple drugs at once and Dr Drew 02:11:02 Trials with drug combinations 02:13:53 Criticism of Fauci and mechanisms of action for ivermectin 02:17:35 Pfizer data on where the vaccine spike protein goes 02:20:42 Spike protein in the ovaries and bone marrow 02:22:12 FDA signals of risk from vaccines and auto-immune issues 02:27:41 Bret summarises and discusses additional harms 02:28:31 Vaccines possibly causing escape mutants 02:31:56 Antibody dependent enhancement (ADE) 02:38:19 Why did Robert and Steve get vaccinated? 02:40:54 Summary of risks including coagulation problems 02:42:41 FDA, thalidomide, and reproductive toxicity 02:48:12 Vaccinating adolescents 02:50:00 Steve on vaccinating his children and the response he receives 02:56:38 Don't be a pioneer, you'll get arrows in the ass 03:00:01 Extended regulatory capture 03:01:10 Can Elon Musk save the planet? 03:05:17 Pharmaceutical industry offshore 03:08:59 Steve's solution, plea to big tech employees, and vaccine long haulers 03:13:41 Robert speaking to big tech employees 03:15:55 Wrap up |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 16, 2021 6:30:21 GMT -6
Holy Sh1t, seawell . . . that is powerful stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 17, 2021 8:00:17 GMT -6
More interesting developments: Apparently there's talk that the plastic screens everyone put up actually make covid tranmission worse (which makes sense really, and is similar situation as to why mask mandates seemed to precede worsening infection rates): "Ministers are also being advised that those perspex screens that have appeared in some offices and restaurants are unlikely to have any benefit in terms of preventing transmission. Problems include them not being positioned correctly, with the possibility that they actually increase the risk of transmission by blocking airflow. Therefore there is clear guidance to ministers that these perspex screens should be scrapped." www.politico.eu/newsletter/london-playbook/politico-london-playbook-living-with-corona-work-from-home-long-term-perspex-screens-scrapped/ |
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 17, 2021 10:31:04 GMT -6
History will prove that some people had 20/20 foresight at the very start of this and that a lot of knee-jerk reactions were driven by fear and not science.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 17, 2021 11:04:56 GMT -6
The Bret Weinstein podcast that seawell posted above is fascinating, well balanced (IMO), terrifying, enlightening and overall really great. It's freaking long. Still picking my way through it. But 3 great minds balancing each other out in one discussion is really great. A lot of talk about scientific protocol's and studies and how they are done. Would love to hear Matt's take on it. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 17, 2021 12:13:39 GMT -6
Ok, I started listening over my lunch break. It's a three hour video. As a boilerplate, I'm pretty consistent that expert opinion regardless of the expert isn't a good way to form an argument. It's even worse if the expert is of dubious integrity, right? So evidence, please. - Question 1. There's an assertion that the spike protein is very dangerous, cytotoxic. No evidence is presented for this in the video. Dr Malone said he sent manuscripts to the FDA. In a (admittedly cursory) search I don't see any publications relating to spike protein cytotoxicity. - Question 2. They say that the spike protein travels all around the body. I also can't find any published evidence for this. For a detailed view of this type of thing read this. Note well the supporting evidence. The other question I have is - if the spike protein is bad, then the virus is also bad. - Question 3. "Censoring is well documented, unequivocal." Is that real? Documented, where? What is the documentation? The engineer guy presents three or four anecdotes. The plural of anecdote is not data. They agree it could be sampling error. But then they say that the signal is suppressed. This is literally the argument from silence. I can counter their scary stories by saying roughly 1300 employees of ours have had the vaccines, we have done vaccines onsite at our company, we have solicited feedback. This is across 25 locations in the US and Latin America, so it is probably a nice proxy for random sampling. We have had zero - ZERO - reports of anything like "fire on the arm" or anything beyond a 1-2 day "man flu" which is more or less what everyone expects. How can you have a discussion with these people when more or less they're talking about facts being distorted? There's no way to have a discussion. I gotta get back to work, but here's where this leaves me. Yes, the vaccine was hurried, I don't think anyone finds this surprising. What is the alternative? A non-rushed vaccine, obviously. But what is the cost of that? If the spike protein that can't replicate is dangerous in the human body, how much more dangerous is covid? If vaccating people is dangerous, how much more is covid? Another observation. At the end of the day, the expert doc on here got the vaccine. What does this tell you? The fellow on the right says "they took a risk and they loss" - Note well Dr Malone does NOT agree. I think --in general-- you should listen to Dr Malone, and NOT to Hirsch. They are incredibly different in how they express their views, and Dr Malone is very very specific in his wording - measured and conservative with his claims. There's a reason. The hyperbole offered by the third guy is not productive (or accurate, in my opinion). I also quite agree about ethics and informed consent. But at the same time, informed consent cuts both/all ways. All of the nonstandard treatments the same people fussing about the vaccine - hydroxycloroquine, ivermetcin, etc - can't passed the same standard of informed consent for treatment with covid 19. This is one of the arguments I have against using them and the reason I suggest they need clinical trials. (And why I'd be opposed to mandated vaccinations, for what its worth). Bottom line - what is the alternative? We know with relative certainty that if everyone in the US got COVID the death toll would likely be in the millions. People: zomg its an emergency cut the red tape Medicine : produced a vaccine that works guys People: no not like that! |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 17, 2021 12:16:11 GMT -6
Get to the end before drawing too many conclusions. There is evidentiary stuff throughout. And yeah, it's long. Either you discredit all 3 or you place some degree of credibility. Your choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 17, 2021 12:18:43 GMT -6
Ok one other comment. At the 30 minute mark the center fellow makes a comment:
- what you did is perfectly defensible. you did an observation and made a hypothesis, and if you check that out the signal will be found as long as you look.
No! No no no! That's not correct at all. Seawell should be nodding now, because he read that article I linked. That's not how it works. One, his observation could be confounded. Two, it may suffer from all kinds of bias and error, including his own predisposition, or selection, or solicitation bias. Three, and most importantly, the hypothesis may well generate a signal which is distinct from noise but still incorrect! An incorrectly created experiment will MISTAKE signal for noise. The whole focus on VAERS is exactly at issue, he sees a signal and he compares it to past trend and assumes that signal is not noise of a different kind. This is NOT valid.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 17, 2021 12:20:59 GMT -6
Get to the end before drawing too many conclusions. There is evidentiary stuff throughout. And yeah, it's long. Either you discredit all 3 or you place some degree of credibility. Your choice. No sir, I don't have to credit or discredit any of these people. That's not how it works. They could all be wrong, they could all be right, but that's not the standard. Ad hominem is a fallacy - you're right. But so is ab auctoritate. Authorities need to provide evidence as much as everyone else. You say there's evidentiary stuff throughout - are there links to papers where we can read the same evidence? I'm 30 minutes in and there has been zero so far. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 17, 2021 13:16:25 GMT -6
Get to the end before drawing too many conclusions. There is evidentiary stuff throughout. And yeah, it's long. Either you discredit all 3 or you place some degree of credibility. Your choice. No sir, I don't have to credit or discredit any of these people. That's not how it works. They could all be wrong, they could all be right, but that's not the standard. Ad hominem is a fallacy - you're right. But so is ab auctoritate. Authorities need to provide evidence as much as everyone else. You say there's evidentiary stuff throughout - are there links to papers where we can read the same evidence? I'm 30 minutes in and there has been zero so far. I doubt the guys in that video are going to provide real, peer reviewed, credible evidence, backed up by a reasonable number of other independent scientists, because, if they could, they wouldn't be podcasting about it. Hucksters (yes, I watched about half an hour of this, and that's what they appear to be) tend to scream the loudest because they can't depend on the facts to back them up. As Matt already mentioned, I want to see legitimate papers published in reputable journals that back this up. I want to see papers from independent, unaffiliated scientists that come to the same conclusions. And I want to see a LOT of it. THAT's how this all works. Anything else is just not satisfactory to draw any sort of reasonable hypotheses from, much less drive public health policy. This is also why we have health experts to sift through all of this stuff. None of us here is a doctor, nor do any of us here have the expertise, reach, or time to dive into the large amount of published research to come to any sort of defensible conclusion. Which is why I defer to the concensus of the experts. |
|
|
|
Post by svart on Jun 17, 2021 13:33:02 GMT -6
Turns out that a lot of viral scientists are now admitting that they had suspicions about the Wuhan lab leak at the very start and that they doubted the "Natural source" narrative but were afraid to seemingly agree with Orange Man Bad for fear of their jobs, grants and status in the scientific fields from being labeled as "racist". That's why you're seeing so many jump up and raise their hands about it now that someone took the plunge first. Politics.People probably died unnecessarily because of politics and media posturing. People need to be put on trial for this. independentchronicle.com/harvard-scientist-says-experts-refused-to-consider-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-to-avoid-being-called-racist/ |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 17, 2021 14:31:25 GMT -6
Get to the end before drawing too many conclusions. There is evidentiary stuff throughout. And yeah, it's long. Either you discredit all 3 or you place some degree of credibility. Your choice. No sir, I don't have to credit or discredit any of these people. That's not how it works. They could all be wrong, they could all be right, but that's not the standard. Ad hominem is a fallacy - you're right. But so is ab auctoritate. Authorities need to provide evidence as much as everyone else. You say there's evidentiary stuff throughout - are there links to papers where we can read the same evidence? I'm 30 minutes in and there has been zero so far. I'm not sure how you do links on a video, but perhaps there are links below the video in the youtube text? At any rate, they are quoting out of actual studies. Again, you can either choose to believe them, discredit them, or hunt down what they are quoting yourself and make a better educated decision yourself. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 17, 2021 14:32:41 GMT -6
I doubt the guys in that video are going to provide real, peer reviewed, credible evidence. Actually, they did. But you have to watch it to get there. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 17, 2021 15:26:00 GMT -6
I doubt the guys in that video are going to provide real, peer reviewed, credible evidence. Actually, they did. But you have to watch it to get there. Care to share any links to the peer reviewed papers that you are saying they referenced in the video? Have you read any of them? Because that's where the rubber meets the road. There's nothing posted on the info/text section (or whatever you call it) of that YouTube video beyond Twitter and Linkdin pages. I'll preface by saying that I truly don't mean this with any malice. But surely you can see how I would be skeptical of the entire presentation going on in that video? Clearly Weinstein knows how to post links to Twitter accounts in that YouTube video. So it's curious to me why he wouldn't be bothered to post links to at least some of the papers they are referencing in that video. Without providing links to those papers, this just sounds like three guys talking. If I were to post a similar video, but with a different stance on the subject, and no scientific backup provided by the video's author, I imagine some of you guys would similarly be skeptical. Everything about that video just sends huckster alarm bells going off in my head. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 17, 2021 15:34:14 GMT -6
No sir, I don't have to credit or discredit any of these people. That's not how it works. They could all be wrong, they could all be right, but that's not the standard. Ad hominem is a fallacy - you're right. But so is ab auctoritate. Authorities need to provide evidence as much as everyone else. You say there's evidentiary stuff throughout - are there links to papers where we can read the same evidence? I'm 30 minutes in and there has been zero so far. I'm not sure how you do links on a video, but perhaps there are links below the video in the youtube text? At any rate, they are quoting out of actual studies. Again, you can either choose to believe them, discredit them, or hunt down what they are quoting yourself and make a better educated decision yourself. I clicked through to Bret Weinstien's COVID site because I wanted to see some data. Among other things, they posted the attached graphic as evidence of ivermectin's efficacy. This doesn't look like conclusive evidence of anything, really. Maybe I'm missing something but this just seems sloppy.  |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 17, 2021 15:47:33 GMT -6
Turns out that a lot of viral scientists are now admitting that they had suspicions about the Wuhan lab leak at the very start and that they doubted the "Natural source" narrative but were afraid to seemingly agree with Orange Man Bad for fear of their jobs, grants and status in the scientific fields from being labeled as "racist". That's why you're seeing so many jump up and raise their hands about it now that someone took the plunge first. Politics.People probably died unnecessarily because of politics and media posturing. People need to be put on trial for this. independentchronicle.com/harvard-scientist-says-experts-refused-to-consider-wuhan-lab-leak-theory-to-avoid-being-called-racist/I don't doubt that some people wanted to avoid being associated with Trump. I interpreted the rest of the article in a much different way than you seem to have, unless I'm misunderstanding your point. People definitely died unnecessarily because of politics and media posturing. People are still dying for those reasons. But who should be put on trial? The people who urged too much caution in the face of an unknown enemy, or the people who told us it was all a hoax, no worse than the flu, and that it would all go away on its own? |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 17, 2021 15:54:46 GMT -6
I'm not sure how you do links on a video, but perhaps there are links below the video in the youtube text? At any rate, they are quoting out of actual studies. Again, you can either choose to believe them, discredit them, or hunt down what they are quoting yourself and make a better educated decision yourself. I clicked through to Bret Weinstien's COVID site because I wanted to see some data. Among other things, they posted the attached graphic as evidence of ivermectin's efficacy. This doesn't look like conclusive evidence of anything, really. Maybe I'm missing something but this just seems sloppy. View AttachmentYeah, maybe supporting evidence is provided on that site but, taken at face value, that graphic doesn't even begin to address all of the other variables that may or may not be contributing to the numbers in Chiapas, relative to the other states in Mexico. Correlation isn't the same thing as causation. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 17, 2021 16:09:05 GMT -6
I clicked through to Bret Weinstien's COVID site because I wanted to see some data. Among other things, they posted the attached graphic as evidence of ivermectin's efficacy. This doesn't look like conclusive evidence of anything, really. Maybe I'm missing something but this just seems sloppy. View AttachmentYeah, maybe supporting evidence is provided on that site but, taken at face value, that graphic doesn't even begin to address all of the other variables that may or may not be contributing to the numbers in Chiapas, relative to the other states in Mexico. Correlation isn't the same thing as causation. Yeah. According to the graphic a number of other Mexican states saw significant declines over the same period. What does that prove? I dunno. They say 'go to the site for conclusive evidence', and the site is kind of a jumble of stuff that could be interpreted in a number of ways. Doesn't seem very conclusive to me, and that's not because I don't want it to be. I'd love for the world's citizens to have easy access to affordable, effective prevention and treatment. |
|
|
|
Post by Quint on Jun 17, 2021 16:26:50 GMT -6
Yeah, maybe supporting evidence is provided on that site but, taken at face value, that graphic doesn't even begin to address all of the other variables that may or may not be contributing to the numbers in Chiapas, relative to the other states in Mexico. Correlation isn't the same thing as causation. Yeah. According to the graphic a number of other Mexican states saw significant declines over the same period. What does that prove? I dunno. They say 'go to the site for conclusive evidence', and the site is kind of a jumble of stuff that could be interpreted in a number of ways. Doesn't seem very conclusive to me, and that's not because I don't want it to be. I'd love for the world's citizens to have easy access to affordable, effective prevention and treatment. Agreed. It would be great if Ivermectin were shown to be an effective treatment. I don't think anybody here is against the idea of a cheap, easily accessible treatment. It's just an odd dichotomy to see some folks do the following: 1. Beat the drum for the use of Ivermectin to treat Covid, which has not gone through any sort of clinical trials, and, to the extent that is has been studied, has, at best, been shown to be inconclusive when ALL research has been considered, not just those studies that have been cherry picked to support Ivermectin's use. 2. Then turn around and profess huge skepticism for a vaccine which has actually gone through clinical trials for the actual treatment of Covid. If people want to be skeptical of the vaccine, given it's rushed approval, fine. I get it. To me, the benefits outweighed the costs, but I get it. But then there should be similar skepticism of Ivermectin by those same people for the same reasons, yet there is seemingly not. Which I just don't understand. If Dr. Weinstein and company want to prove it's effectiveness, keep studying Ivermectin, do it as a part of studies that have much larger sample sizes, address the shortcomings that other scientists have identified, and get it into clinical trials. THAT'S how this all works. Until then... |
|
