|
|
Post by brenta on Jun 23, 2021 12:48:08 GMT -6
I agree that censorship by the government is bad. But if private companies or individuals choose to not let their platform or business be used for something that violates their values, that's their prerogative as long as they're not discriminating against a protected class of individuals. I don't want to record or mix neo-nazi music. It's against my values and I don't want to be complicit in spreading that hate. Thank god there isn't a law that requires us to work on anything that comes our way to avoid "censorship." YouTube has decided they don't want their platform used to spread medical misinformation because that goes against their values. That's their prerogative. If a competitor wants to pop up and be the medical misinformation video hub, they can go ahead and do that. Twitter decided after January 6th that they no longer want to be a platform for QAnon insanity. The QAnon mess has now moved to competitors like Parlour and Telegram, who are okay with being a platform for that. We all get to choose what our business can be a platform for, and that's true freedom. Two points: 1) disagreeing with the CDC, in and of itself, doesn’t qualify as medical misinformation. There have been numerous times during this pandemic when the CDC, WHO and state health departments didn’t “agree” with each other. Does that mean they were all spreading misinformation? 2) although private companies and individuals have the right to set their own standards, and choose or not choose to host certain content, we haven’t yet figured out (as a society) whether these platforms should be regulated as public utilities. There’s a strong argument that they should. Personally I’m undecided on that point. To your first point, I don’t know exactly what YouTube’s policy is on taking down videos. Is that what it is? That they only take down videos that disagree with the CDC? My point is that as private company they can set whatever arbitrary rules they want. If they arbitrarily decide something is misinformation, they have the right to make that decision for their business, and other people have the right to choose to use Vimeo or Frank or whatever instead. As for regulating them as public utilities, that sounds highly unlikely to me. Public utilities are generally granted a government imposed monopoly for the service they are providing. It can easily be argued that YouTube has a monopoly (which should be addressed by antitrust laws), but do we want a government imposed monopoly for internet videos? It seems that a lot of the people want the free market to prevail and regulate itself in most situations do not want that in this situation. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jun 23, 2021 12:57:37 GMT -6
How interesting he has an undisclosed conflict of interest relating to his own vaccine development.  Based on this, and the previous article I posted, there seems to be an awful lot of conveniently-undisclosed conflicts of interest among this set. 🤔 |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 23, 2021 13:08:41 GMT -6
I'll let the truth police sort out this Dr. and his conclusions. All I know is that he is smarter than I am.... (Not hard) But there are certainly dissenting opinions out there, and IMO both sides should be heard so that intelligent conversation (not censorship) can occur, and progress can be made on these problems. Even in music, dissenting opinions bring clarity and creativity to the table. How much more so in medicine. This analysis seems to be popping up everywhere this week. I suppose in 6 months we'll know whether or not his conclusions (based on peer reviewed reports from what he said, and no I don't have links.  ) are valid, or lacking. Still....worth examining - not deep 6-ing. newtube.app/user/FaktaSaja/5ndRqzu🤣🤣🤣the comments section🤣🤣🤣😵😵😵 This was my favorite.... Bridle is a COMPLETE QUACK and FRAUD! He is COMPLETELY WRONG on COVID! He needs to be WATERBOARDED in GITMO! Osterholm has COMPLETELY DEBUNKED, DISCREDITED and DISMANTLED Bridle!Maaaaaybe....the truth lies somewhere in between? |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 23, 2021 13:09:43 GMT -6
How interesting he has an undisclosed conflict of interest relating to his own vaccine development. Based on this, and the previous article I posted, there seems to be an awful lot of conveniently-undisclosed conflicts of interest among this set. 🤔 Does anyone believe Pfizer has a conflict of interest? |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jun 23, 2021 13:17:18 GMT -6
🤣🤣🤣the comments section🤣🤣🤣😵😵😵 This was my favorite.... Bridle is a COMPLETE QUACK and FRAUD! He is COMPLETELY WRONG on COVID! He needs to be WATERBOARDED in GITMO! Osterholm has COMPLETELY DEBUNKED, DISCREDITED and DISMANTLED Bridle!Maaaaaybe....the truth lies somewhere in between? The truth does not lie somewhere in between. Either the Covid vaccine contains the toxin that Bridle can't seem to produce any evidence of and that multiple studies have already debunked, or, it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 23, 2021 14:00:45 GMT -6
Two points: 1) disagreeing with the CDC, in and of itself, doesn’t qualify as medical misinformation. There have been numerous times during this pandemic when the CDC, WHO and state health departments didn’t “agree” with each other. Does that mean they were all spreading misinformation? 2) although private companies and individuals have the right to set their own standards, and choose or not choose to host certain content, we haven’t yet figured out (as a society) whether these platforms should be regulated as public utilities. There’s a strong argument that they should. Personally I’m undecided on that point. To your first point, I don’t know exactly what YouTube’s policy is on taking down videos. Is that what it is? That they only take down videos that disagree with the CDC? My point is that as private company they can set whatever arbitrary rules they want. If they arbitrarily decide something is misinformation, they have the right to make that decision for their business, and other people have the right to choose to use Vimeo or Frank or whatever instead. As for regulating them as public utilities, that sounds highly unlikely to me. Public utilities are generally granted a government imposed monopoly for the service they are providing. It can easily be argued that YouTube has a monopoly (which should be addressed by antitrust laws), but do we want a government imposed monopoly for internet videos? It seems that a lot of the people want the free market to prevail and regulate itself in most situations do not want that in this situation. Yes YouTube’s policy is to basically take down anything that disputes the CDC’s narrative on COVID. No one is saying it’s not their right to arbitrarily take down videos. It certainly is. What me, and others, are saying is that it’s harmful to “censor” videos, specifically in the context of scientific debate. Especially if/when it’s done somewhat arbitrarily. As to the 2nd point. I don’t yet have stance on that. I don’t know if the internet giants should be regulated as government utilities. There’s certainly an argument for it (and against it). It’s very complicated and I don’t think anyone really knows the right answer to that. But that question is deeply intertwined with the censorship debate. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 23, 2021 14:19:42 GMT -6
Does anyone believe Pfizer has a conflict of interest? Not conflict of interest, but bias - of course! And its disclosed, and we should absolutely consider that when reading their studies. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 23, 2021 16:22:07 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 23, 2021 17:39:50 GMT -6
That website is not a reliable resource. This: Is either a brilliant troll, or the single greatest misuse of p value of all time. Cue the “that’s not how this works” meme. They actually use a WHO study that concluded ivermectin shouldn’t be used for treatment outside of trials as a pro-ivermectin case. And the risk ratio they report for that study is not what the WHO reported in the paper they cite. That WHO article says - “For most key outcomes, including mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital admission, duration of hospitalization and viral clearance, the panel considered the evidence of very low certainty. Evidence was rated as very low certainty primarily because of very serious imprecision for most outcomes: the aggregate data had wide confidence intervals and/or very few events. There were also serious concerns related to risk of bias for some outcomes, specifically lack of blinding, lack of trial pre-registration, and lack of outcome reporting for one trial that did not report mechanical ventilation despite pre-specifying it in their protocol (publication bias).” apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340374/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.1-eng.pdfI am really left wondering who cares enough to make astroturf campaigns about random covid19 treatments. It’s a very strange thing. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 23, 2021 18:03:57 GMT -6
Hi Ehren! You keep mentioning "him" and focusing on "him". My comments were only related to "him" because that particular video just happened to be the last one linked in this thread and it just happened to be the last one that I saw that has been removed. There are hundreds - probably thousands - of videos of people who don't' monetize their youtube videos that have been "censored" because of varying opinions. People who are not making money and don't have a presence or agenda. People who just have a differing opinion to the current narrative that is seemingly mandatory if you are going to post on these matters. These include pro vaccine people who have suffered serious adverse affects from the vaccine, who wanted to share, and were shut down by youtube, facebook, etc.. So....from my perspective, censorship is VERY real, and VERY pervasive in our world right now. And the "rules" or "guidelines" are so warped as to be crazy insane - at least for one side of our country. BTW, half the video's you posted to make the example of "his" video's NOT being censored, are now in fact.....censored. LOL Ironic, no? Well...you asked me to post videos that were still up, and they were at the time of my posting  I think our disagreement lies in the fact that I don't believe that it's 'censorship' when a platform pulls videos that don't follow guidelines for posting. We may have different theories as to why a platform has those rules in the first place, but ultimately it's theirs to do with what they will. I'd defend the right to free speech any day but I can't get behind the idea that a platform should be obligated to let users post any content they want. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 23, 2021 18:35:10 GMT -6
That website is not a reliable resource. This: Is either a brilliant troll, or the single greatest misuse of p value of all time. Cue the “that’s not how this works” meme. They actually use a WHO study that concluded ivermectin shouldn’t be used for treatment outside of trials as a pro-ivermectin case. And the risk ratio they report for that study is not what the WHO reported in the paper they cite. That WHO article says - “For most key outcomes, including mortality, mechanical ventilation, hospital admission, duration of hospitalization and viral clearance, the panel considered the evidence of very low certainty. Evidence was rated as very low certainty primarily because of very serious imprecision for most outcomes: the aggregate data had wide confidence intervals and/or very few events. There were also serious concerns related to risk of bias for some outcomes, specifically lack of blinding, lack of trial pre-registration, and lack of outcome reporting for one trial that did not report mechanical ventilation despite pre-specifying it in their protocol (publication bias).” apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/340374/WHO-2019-nCoV-therapeutics-2021.1-eng.pdfI am really left wondering who cares enough to make astroturf campaigns about random covid19 treatments. It’s a very strange thing. Once again…just sharing information. Oxford still considers it important enough to study. I don’t think they’d waste time on a “random covid treatment.” When sorting through all the ivermectin info it’s the one site I’ve found that combines info from the most studies in one place. The site pulls from 50 plus studies, anything they got right there or did you just skim long enough to get the ammo you were looking for to fire back? It will be interesting to see how the Oxford study goes. Maybe then we’ll have some data suitable for everyone’s liking. Did you read all the way to the bottom? “Please send us corrections, updates, or comments. Vaccines and treatments are both extremely valuable and complementary. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used…” Send them a message and point out what you’ve found. It could be helpful. |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 23, 2021 19:16:25 GMT -6
I’m glad Oxford is studying it.
The astroturf campaign aspect is what’s random. Why this one? Why HCQ? There are dozens and dozens of other drugs that have similar performance records to these. It’s strange that there is a concerted effort to drum up support. I’ll bet dollars to donuts in a few months ivermectin will be forgotten because based on the evidence to date it probably doesn’t work. If it does, more’s the better.
I wasn’t firing back, I’d seen that website before. It’s pseudoscience and the “meta-analysis” is, to be frank, junk. Most of the studies there simply aren’t good or well done. Many of the ivermectin papers floating around reference each other in this weird feedback loop that has developed, just like one did for HCQ before it.
I dont need to read every study to dismiss that site as either nefarious or a crank, because two or three pieces of evidence do it. Brandolini’s law is coming into play here.
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 24, 2021 13:00:45 GMT -6
You can take a quick look at a link and decide it isn't for you, that's fine... but my issue is when you do these drive by fact checks(for instance skimming through 30 minutes of a 3 hour video) and then post your findings as irrefutable fact here. Case in point, I shared vaers information. You quickly decided that the difference in reporting periods fully explained it, but that's not accurate. Someone else chimed in that the deaths in 1976 that suspended that vaccine campaign were verified first so that was the difference between then and now but turns out that isn't accurate either. So my proposal is...if we're giving an opinion, thought, suspicion, whatever... then just state it as such and we can weigh that in proper context. I understand that some of the the early critics of vaccines were questionable characters but once people like Dr. Kory and Dr. Malone started speaking up you still attempted to shoot them down quickly. What qualifies you to do that? I think there are a few people here that have an above average grasp of statistics that have attempted to translate that into deciphering a very complex medical/political situation and it isn't working out too well. There are multiple ongoing issues right now that aren't going to be wrapped up anytime soon(the Oxford study is going to take a few months at least). Vaers concerns are crossing over into mainstream coverage(https://www.wsj.com/articles/are-covid-vaccines-riskier-than-advertised-11624381749). Dr. Malone just shared some more insight from his contacts at the FDA: www.foxnews.com/media/tucker-carlson-mrna-vaccine-inventor (he starts speaking around 1:45) I don't think we're going to be able to shut the book on some of this stuff for quite some time. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 24, 2021 14:14:16 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 24, 2021 14:34:48 GMT -6
You can take a quick look at a link and decide it isn't for you, that's fine... but my issue is when you do these drive by fact checks(for instance skimming through 30 minutes of a 3 hour video) and then post your findings as irrefutable fact here. Hang on -- your critique here is not that I'm presenting false or erroneous information, but that I'm doing it too quickly? Are there actually any problems with what I've pointed out? Do you disagree that the ivermectin website you linked is presenting misleading information, or in the case of the WHO report, an outright falsehood? I pointed out an error, I provided evidence that it wasn't true. What more should I do, in your opinion? Am I obligated to watch a 3 hour video in full in order to have an opinion on things said in the first 30 minutes? Discussions are to share and rationalize positions for mutual edification. In one breath you say that I present things as irrefutable fact, and in the next you're doing the same thing (bold). Can you support this assertion? Why isn't it accurate? Can you please show where I've been critical of either one of those people, or shot anything down? |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 24, 2021 15:03:12 GMT -6
I'm sure these docs will be silenced / debunked / discredited by the political left soon enough. Sucks when medicine is turned into a weapon and used to abuse one side or the other.
Is this intentional irony?  Being a vicious right wing capitalist myself, I read the WSJ. I read their op-ed. Several times they use a kind of debate tactic called "paltering" - using truthful statements in deceptive ways. Ok, maybe that isn't fair since paltering implies malicious intent, but still. For example, they write "Historically, the safety of drugs, including vaccines, is often not fully understood until they are deployed in large populations....We learn more about drug safety from real evidence and can adjust clinical recommendations to balance risks and benefits." I'd say this is a true statement. But while they do list three (in)famous examples of drugs that had problems, they give no context for how often this happens or how frequent such problems are. This paragraph leads the user to a place of unqualified caution with no support whatsoever. They also have several big assertions which they leave completely unsupported. Regarding scientific disagreements "the most common motivation has been political" - how could anyone possibly know that? Are they omniscient that they see into men's hearts? Or another "the silence around these potential signals of harm reflects the policy surrounding Covid-19 vaccines" - this is an absolutely unqualified opinions. Which, fine, it is an editorial. Or the really big whopper (in my opinion) "The CDC and the FDA are surely aware of these data patterns, but neither agency has recognized the trend." How do they know this? What is this based on? I try to be pretty careful about what I write, but I know not everyone does that. And it is a shame, because they should. It is disingenuous to put things out like this with the follow up to say "I'm just asking questions." Also, my brain juggles numbers. I can't help it, it is a sickness. They gave me exactly one number to look at, and so I did. They point out that there are 321 cases of myocarditis within 5 days of vaccination. A quick search tells me that myocarditis happens at a rate of 10 to 20 cases per 100,000 persons per year, and the majority of patients are young and healthy.
There are 330 million people in the United States. A rate of 10-20 per 100,000 suggests that there are 33,000 to 66,000 cases of myocarditis per year in the US. If we assume that these are randomly distributed we can divide that by 365, to see 90 to 180 cases per day. Multiply that by five, and you'd hazard a guess that for any rolling five day window, you'd expect 450-900 cases of myocarditis.
178.3 million people have received at least one dose of a vaccine so far. So, if we take 178.3/330 million that's 54%. Which means for any rolling five day window we'd expect 226 to 452 cases of myocarditis. 321 falls almost exactly in the middle of the estimate. See update. Should I be alarmed? I don't feel like I should be alarmed. But the FDA should investigate these, absolutely. Do we have any reason to believe that they aren't? Any reason at all? Edit: One second of google search shows that their suggestion that neither agency has recognized the trend is objectively false. www.npr.org/2021/06/23/1009522605/heart-inflammation-in-teens-and-young-adults-after-covid-19-vaccine-is-rare-cdc-"The facts are clear: this is an extremely rare side effect, and only an exceedingly small number of people will experience it after vaccination," officials said in a statement. "Importantly, for the young people who do, most cases are mild, and individuals recover often on their own or with minimal treatment. In addition, we know that myocarditis and pericarditis are much more common if you get COVID-19, and the risks to the heart from COVID-19 infection can be more severe." Nevertheless, FDA is adding a warning to the fact sheet. www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/us-panel-review-heart-inflammation-cases-after-pfizer-moderna-vaccines-2021-06-23/This has additional information all of the cases in VAERS are 12-24 year old males, so the background rate above is not applicable. Contra WSJ op-ed, CDC has been investing the cases for several months, can't confirm causal relationship, but says the rate right now is 12.6 cases per million. |
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 24, 2021 16:05:54 GMT -6
You can take a quick look at a link and decide it isn't for you, that's fine... but my issue is when you do these drive by fact checks(for instance skimming through 30 minutes of a 3 hour video) and then post your findings as irrefutable fact here. Hang on -- your critique here is not that I'm presenting false or erroneous information, but that I'm doing it too quickly? Are there actually any problems with what I've pointed out? Do you disagree that the ivermectin website you linked is presenting misleading information, or in the case of the WHO report, an outright falsehood? I pointed out an error, I provided evidence that it wasn't true. What more should I do, in your opinion? Am I obligated to watch a 3 hour video in full in order to have an opinion on things said in the first 30 minutes? Discussions are to share and rationalize positions for mutual edification. In one breath you say that I present things as irrefutable fact, and in the next you're doing the same thing (bold). Can you support this assertion? Why isn't it accurate? Can you please show where I've been critical of either one of those people, or shot anything down? I can back up everything I said and I will. I’m trying to help you read the room a little but if you reject that, then fine. I’m not the first person to express this to you. We can get all in the weeds later but for now, I reiterate that you aren’t qualified to fact check everything posted here. Keep trying if you’d like, I’m just letting you know I see through it. No, you aren’t obligated to watch a 3 hour video of course, but you should if you’re going to try and fact check it. If you didn’t have time to watch it, then maybe sit that one out? I’ll get back to you with details ASAP but I’m a little distracted 😁  |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 24, 2021 16:15:10 GMT -6
What qualifies someone to fact check? The only reason I even watched or responded to the 3 hr video was because bill asked for my opinion.
Lol
Enjoy the beach bro. This isn’t fruitful anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 24, 2021 16:55:47 GMT -6
matt@IAA I saw a few (potential) errors in your numbers for myocarditis. I hope you don’t mind me pointing them out. The article references “non-infectious” myocarditis. That needs to be differentiated, I don’t know this for a fact, but anecdotally the vast majority of myocarditis that I see clinically, in young adults and kids, is related to certain infections. I’m not claiming it’s a fact but it is a very important variable.
Second, random distribution doesn’t equate to equal distribution. Especially in nature. There are tons of diseases and disease processes that follow seasonal patterns for example. Influenza, RSV, Croup etc, not to mention behavioral patterns like suicide, substance abuse, drunk driving etc. We see spikes of those things at different times in different regions, countries, cultures, environments etc. So that 5 day rolling average isn’t really accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by teejay on Jun 24, 2021 17:12:06 GMT -6
Thanks man - I am not an expert in meta-analysis, but as I see it there is a potential problem in that they included basically everything including preprint and unpublished articles. For example, they explain this choice by saying "We did not consider publication on preprint web sites to constitute a risk of bias because all studies were scrutinized and peer reviewed by us during the review process and, where additional information was needed, we contacted the authors for clarification." Dono about the validity of that -- again, I'm not an expert but that sounds questionable. Maybe it's normal? I don't know. Just reading through here are some potential issues with the 22 treatment trials they did include - - widely varying dosing - multiple different comparators (e.g., placebo, standard of care, hydroxychloroquine, etc) - inconsistent admission standards (i.e., is there a source of bias in who was included or excluded by severity?) - inconsistent or unknown selection bias or randomization of patients - inconsistent blinding of participants (i.e., do the patients know) - only six were published in peer reviewed journals - comparison for efficacy is an assumed all-cause mortality but studies draw from all over the globe / from widely different countries Even all that being said, what they found was moderate evidence on GRADE approach, a system used to guide subjective scores of certainty in these kind of analysis. Moderate means "The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect." But remember, GRADE is subjective. Another set of researchers may look at the same info and say it is low "The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect." Ok, you say, but its the best we can do right now with Ivermectin. yeah. I agree. The problem is we have people saying - look we need to have full disclosure and take a hard stance on ethics with <<one medicine>> who are simultaneously taking the complete opposite approach with <<some other medicine>>. There isn't a ton of hard evidence for Ivermectin being helpful (and I'll admit I'm biased and skeptical toward it, partly because if it were a slam dunk it seems by now you'd see some large trial demonstrating it, and it hasn't.) Do the same checks I mentioned above against the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J clinical trials. The quality of the studies is not really comparable. Understand that Wolters Kluwer is a neutral, internationally respected organization that has been around for decades. Research, reporting, and consulting is what they do in multiple areas, not just health. You can certainly question their findings and presentation, but WK would not survive in their industry if what they do is not thorough, accurate, and according to industry standards. They hosted a panel discussion with Fauci back in May, so it's clear they have no dog in the fight. If anything they may be more on the side of supporting Fauci. And regarding the "hard evidence" for Ivermectin, I can only tell you I know someone personally in the medical field who has been prescribing it for a while. There may not be extensive studies yet, but every patient...let me repeat that...every patient prescribed Ivermectin has recovered fully within days. If that's an anomaly, then it is an anomaly happening 100% of the time. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 24, 2021 18:30:38 GMT -6
And regarding the "hard evidence" for Ivermectin, I can only tell you I know someone personally in the medical field who has been prescribing it for a while. There may not be extensive studies yet, but every patient...let me repeat that...every patient prescribed Ivermectin has recovered fully within days. If that's an anomaly, then it is an anomaly happening 100% of the time. That anomaly must be going around then. I know someone as well with outstanding results. Don't know if it's 100%, but it's very close to that. Of course, they are not studied and peer reviewed - just successful in treatment. Take it for what it's worth. Anecdotal only.... |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 24, 2021 18:45:35 GMT -6
matt@IAA I saw a few (potential) errors in your numbers for myocarditis. I hope you don’t mind me pointing them out. The article references “non-infectious” myocarditis. That needs to be differentiated, I don’t know this for a fact, but anecdotally the vast majority of myocarditis that I see clinically, in young adults and kids, is related to certain infections. I’m not claiming it’s a fact but it is a very important variable. Second, random distribution doesn’t equate to equal distribution. Especially in nature. There are tons of diseases and disease processes that follow seasonal patterns for example. Influenza, RSV, Croup etc, not to mention behavioral patterns like suicide, substance abuse, drunk driving etc. We see spikes of those things at different times in different regions, countries, cultures, environments etc. So that 5 day rolling average isn’t really accurate. I don't mind at all! How do you distinguish infectious from non-infectious myocarditis? Or rather, how would a VAERS report distinguish the two? Myocarditis can be caused from lots of things, right? Interesting point on the 5 day rolling average - if, for example, most cases were caused by viral infections, there could be some seasonal background. Do you know if there's a seasonality to it? (I couldn't find anything on the subject). Edit - found this. Looks like <<in Denmark>> there's not much evidence for seasonality. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31431396/At any rate, I actually shot an email to Dr Risch and he was kind enough to reply. His suggestion is that if it were a reporting artifact, you'd expect the reports to come on day one or two, but the reports in VAERS peak on day three and subside. He also suggested that's how long it takes for the "snake neuromuscular toxin segments on the virus spike protein" to get to the heart. I don't think I agree with him there, as there have been papers published that directly refute this. In short, you see S1 at day three, and full spike at day 15 (as the vaccine-spike-producing cells are killed). academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciab465/6279075Regarding the "snake toxin" comment - which I find more than a little bit interesting - he clarified: "Both the currently circulating SARS-CoV-2 spike protein and the vaccines spike proteins have segments that seem to be very similar if not identical to venom neurotoxins in two particular types of snakes. It is an obvious hypothesis that these segments could cause symptoms similar to what are seen in snake bite victims. This part at least was not man-made." I think this clarification raises a lot more questions than it answers. I still have lots of questions about this. I know that the flu shot can cause myocarditis as well, so one thing I'm wondering is whether this is a "normal" level of myocarditis for vaccinations, or higher? I mean, there's tons of things that can cause it. I haven't found anything reasonable about it to compare. It's hard to know anything without the actual data the CDC has. Part of the reason I think an Op-Ed like that is kinda sketchy. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 24, 2021 18:45:49 GMT -6
One thing that I think bears considering....many of the doctors treating with HCQ or Ivermectin are not ONLY treating with HCQ or Ivermectin. They are using other drugs and vitamins, treatments, etc. as well. I don't think the peer reviewed studies have been mimicing what the doctors who have been successful are doing. I could be wrong though. I definitely get the feel that they are testing ONLY HCQ or Ivermectin by themselves. Which is quite possibly why the studies show low success. ??
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 24, 2021 19:11:25 GMT -6
Understand that Wolters Kluwer is a neutral, internationally respected organization that has been around for decades. Research, reporting, and consulting is what they do in multiple areas, not just health. You can certainly question their findings and presentation, but WK would not survive in their industry if what they do is not thorough, accurate, and according to industry standards. They hosted a panel discussion with Fauci back in May, so it's clear they have no dog in the fight. If anything they may be more on the side of supporting Fauci. And regarding the "hard evidence" for Ivermectin, I can only tell you I know someone personally in the medical field who has been prescribing it for a while. There may not be extensive studies yet, but every patient...let me repeat that...every patient prescribed Ivermectin has recovered fully within days. If that's an anomaly, then it is an anomaly happening 100% of the time. Wolter Kluwer didn't do this meta-analysis, a doctor at Newcastle University did. Simply because a publisher (WK in this case) publishes something doesn't mean **at all** that they were involved in the study or are responsible for it. They just own the journal that published it. I wasn't questioning them or the journal at any rate. The "hard evidence" part is precisely the issue. If I gave 100 random people from the US COVID19 and sugar pills, I'd expect 100 of them to recover. If a doctor has a practice with predominantly younger patients, that number could well be in the thousands. The vast majority of patients who have COVID recover fully within days. So no, it is not an anomaly, and it also isn't evidence that ivermectin works. This is literally why we do randomized controlled trials. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jun 24, 2021 19:17:32 GMT -6
One thing that I think bears considering....many of the doctors treating with HCQ or Ivermectin are not ONLY treating with HCQ or Ivermectin. They are using other drugs and vitamins, treatments, etc. as well. I don't think the peer reviewed studies have been mimicing what the doctors who have been successful are doing. I could be wrong though. I definitely get the feel that they are testing ONLY HCQ or Ivermectin by themselves. Which is quite possibly why the studies show low success. ?? That's a double edged sword, though: if my wife gets a headache, and I treat her by giving her some ibuprofen and also by kissing her aching forehead, her recovery would provide anecdotal evidence that my kiss can cure headaches. Without isolating my kiss to test its efficacy, we end up with incomplete or misleading data. |
|
) are valid, or lacking. Still....worth examining - not deep 6-ing.
