Quackery

[Paul A]

Bizarre that people take ivermectin instead of vaccine.

[OldFartRides]

Wrong thread ? 

[Paul A]

Complaining about doctors.

 

[OldFartRides]

Personally, I suffered no ill effects from the two shot Moderna vax. 
I took my chances with science over virus.

Your results may vary.

Best,

Edited September 8, 2021 by OldFartRides
My ignorant post corrected.

[Paul A]

Yes, was meaning people not listening to doctors, but choosing to listen to quackery from conspiracy theorists.

[ir_fuel]

14 minutes ago, Paul A said:

Yes, was meaning people not listening to doctors, but choosing to listen to quackery from conspiracy theorists.

I like listening to quackery. It's been a long time since I heard so much creativity, and every time you discover something new.

The best one was an online discussion between 3 conspiracy theorists who couldn't agree on which conspiracy related to covid was the right one (Bill Gates Big Reset stuff etc). It was quite a sight  

[Paul A]

Bill Gates, at times the world's richest man.

And yet, he would be motivated by money, to create a virus to infect the world, so he can make profits from it....

Seems unlikely.

[The Brahan Seer]

Many pharmaceuticals are found to be effective against other diseases or conditions they weren't initially made for.

Check out the John Campbell link below, he always follows the science. He is not antivax, He called this pandemic way back in Jan/Feb 2020.  Watching  his early vlogs and you will hear his frustration that on-one was taking this outbreak seriously.

 

[atdlzpae]

On 9/7/2021 at 4:35 PM, OldFartRides said:

If any are prescribing it for Covid, they’re practicing quackery.

The evidence it works against Covid is abundant, it's cheap (< $1 per treatment) and very safe (available in some countries OTC, 4 billion doses administered in the last 30 years).

Why are you saying that prescribing it is a quackery? I would've agreed with you a year ago... But now?

On 9/7/2021 at 11:40 AM, Paul A said:

Bizarre that people take ivermectin instead of vaccine.

I looked at available data (VAERS, Eudra, raw efficacy data from various governments, my personal risk factors, Covid death and injury rates, countless studies, countless substances...) and decided that the risk of vaccine side-effects is comparable to the risk from the Covid itself.

So I skipped the vaccine. I'm taking zinc + vit. D + vit. C + quercetin + curcumin and I supplement that with a P3 mask inside buildings.

What's so bizarre about it? I'm sure you also looked at available data and simply came to a different conclusion.

I hate how political medicine became. And how totalitarian the world now suddenly is. We should be arguing data, not calling people names.

Edited September 8, 2021 by atdlzpae

[OldFartRides]

I stand corrected.

Edited September 8, 2021 by OldFartRides
….maybe

[Paul A]

Article from "Nature" August 2, 2021.

"Nature" is the preeminent scientific journal of the world.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

 

Article from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration of the USA), current as of September 2, 2021.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

 

[RockyTop]

“Not listening to doctors”

Who is not listening to doctors? The crazy conspiracy theorist, the crazy politicians or the psychotic media. I don’t think anyone is listening to the doctors. The doctors I know are not supporting the vaccine, at least not behind closed doors. I had COVID 19 in May of 2020. ( positive test, fever for three days)   I was told by my doctor to avoid the vaccine if at all possible. He said I don’t need it and it could cause problems. ( heart issues, blood clotting, stoke) …. He stressed that the side effects are more  common than is being reported. 

So…… I should listen to my doctor, right!  

[atdlzpae]

28 minutes ago, Paul A said:

Article from "Nature" August 2, 2021.

"Nature" is the preeminent scientific journal of the world.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02081-w

Yes, Elgazzar's studies were retracted. And they weren't the only ones. You didn't check the link I provided you - c19ivermectin.com already lists Elgazzar's study as "retracted" and doesn't count it.
That's what's great about meta-analysis - if you don't trust some data, you can just retract them and recompute. Overall, almost all prophylaxis and early treatment studies show positive effect. Retracting a few studies doesn't change the results in any substantial way.

37 minutes ago, Paul A said:

Article from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration of the USA), current as of September 2, 2021.

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

That's their opinion. One of the arguments is "Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19" which I obviously disagree with. And I hope we can agree that government agencies make mistakes all the time.

India, Zimbabwe and Mexico already prescribe Ivermectin as an early treatment.

###

You didn't address any of my points, it feels like you just posted a few links from Google. 😟

A good place to start are those two podcasts:
- Pierre Kory & Bret Weinstein - COVID, Ivermectin and the Crime of the Century
- Bret Weinstein & Robert Malone & Steve Kirsch - How to save the world, in three easy steps

I link to these particular podcasts because:
- they were banned from YouTube (YT's policy specifically forbids "recommending" Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin)
- they were thoroughly fact-checked (BetterSkeptics subscribers found 5 errors overall, I consider that a very good number considering how many hours they were talking)

If you still disagree, can you please answer with data, not with links to opinion pieces?

[mrelwood]

11 hours ago, atdlzpae said:

If you still disagree, can you please answer with data, not with links to opinion pieces?

Interesting discussion. Kudos to you for truly doing your homework on the matter, and forming your opinions on available confirmed facts! That’s a rare thing to see. That is the heart of good science. Me likey!

 Unfortunately opinions on vaccines (in general, not just Covid) are usually extremely strongly based on fear and distorted and corrupt, even purely incorrect “news”. Trying to discuss the subject often turns to be similar to V11/S18 suspension “debates” or even GW vs KS arguments of past years. And in the worst case may end up like a fight about riding speed between a NYC rider and an European one. Meaning, everything you say can and will be taken out of context, and answered with personal insults.

 However, I should still have one bag of microwave popcorn left. I’ll be reading this thread with interest, and I have a feeling that the popcorn might be gone by the end of the week. 

[ir_fuel]

15 hours ago, atdlzpae said:

I looked at available data (VAERS, Eudra, raw efficacy data from various governments, my personal risk factors, Covid death and injury rates, countless studies, countless substances...) and decided that the risk of vaccine side-effects is comparable to the risk from the Covid itself.

Interesting.

However our hospitals are currently slowly filling up with unvaccinated people, not with vaccinated people having side effects.

[ir_fuel]

In the end it doesn't add up.

I'm going to use imaginary numbers here, but the reasoning stands: 

let's say you have a 1% chance of getting seriously ill from covid ( = hospital needed)

let's say you also have a 1% chance of getting seriously ill from the vaccine ( = hospital needed)

In our country 10% of the population has been diagnosed with covid, which means 0.1% of the population would require hospitalisation

In our country 90% of the population has been vaccinated, which means 0.9% of the population would require hospitalisation.

Now let's apply some numbers to it:

10 million people, 1 million infected, 10.000 requiring hospitalisation

10 million people, 9 million vaccinated, 90.000 requiring hospitalisation.

 

It makes no sense. If your numbers are correct, on a large scale we should see the hospitals completely overrun by people having serious side effects of the vaccine, because a lot more people had a vaccine compared to those who actually had covid. Yet this doesn't happen. Now of course if you believe all numbers we are served are lies by Big Government and Big Pharma, then the discussion ends here.

 

BTW in my country we don't only have the covid occupation of hospitals. We can find the general numbers too (number of people currently in hospital, number of ICU beds used), so it's not as if they can hide it.

Edited September 9, 2021 by ir_fuel

[Paul A]

US CDC 

Updated September 2, 2021

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

 

Australian Associated Press (AAP)

September 8, 2021

https://www.aap.com.au/australian-vaccine-death-claims-are-a-data-dupe/

Claims of deaths caused by vaccines might need to be treated with caution.

 

Obtaining drug approval is a stringent, rigorous process.

The clinical trials alone comprises of three phases.  The third phase of Pfizer's Random Controlled Trial (RCT) was over 43k participants.

 

Efficacy calculation.

How many in the vaccinated group contracted covid? (x)

How many in placebo group contracted covid? (y)

Divide x/y to get (z)

One subtract (z) to get efficacy rate.

 

Many cases of hospitalization from ivermectin, ingesting bleach, unvaccinated dying.

As per other comment, not receiving reports of hospitals being overwhelmed by vaccinated patients.

 

Think eminent scientific/academic journals such as the multidisciplinary "Nature" and the British "Lancet" medical journal, the FDA, the CDC.....should be relied on more so than YouTubers, podcasters, etc.

 

[Paul A]

How COVID-19 vaccines are being tested

Before a vaccine is registered for use, it is tested extensively during development and then in thousands of people. Testing first begins with laboratory research, then animal studies and finally human clinical trials. Clinical trials involve testing the vaccine in volunteers, and are conducted in phases.

Clinical trials must provide scientific evidence which demonstrates that the benefits of a vaccine greatly outweigh any risks.

Phase 1

Phase 1 clinical trials usually include a few dozen healthy adult volunteers. They focus primarily on establishing that the vaccine is safe, and also on demonstrating that the vaccine induces an immune response.
 

Phase 2

Phase 2 clinical trials have hundreds of volunteers, and can include specific groups for whom the new vaccine is intended. For example older adults, children or people with pre-existing medical conditions. These trials aim to test whether the vaccine causes an immune response and confirm that it is safe with minor side effects, such as a mild headache.
 

Phase 3

Phase 3 clinical trials include many thousands of participants. They aim to test whether a vaccine is effective in preventing people from getting the disease – in this case COVID-19. Phase 3 trials also thoroughly assess the vaccine for safety and side effects.

In a Phase 3 trial, researchers usually compare data between vaccinated people and those who received a placebo (like a salt water injection). They compare the frequency of infection, disease severity and any reported side effects between the two groups.

 

Moderna 28k participants.

Astrazeneca 32k participants.

[The Brahan Seer]

Science doesn't tell us what is true but tells us what is false. The difficulty people have is they forget that everything changes too.

Lay people don't look beyond a report to see how credible it is and wether it followed scientific method. 

We need to trust the experts who are doctors/virologists and know what they are talking about. They are credible and have vast knowledge and experience. 

In the beginning we knew nothing about this virus. This is why we had to be very cautious. As time moves on and studies are carried out and data is released we learn more about it.

We didn't know the death rate in the beginning or how symptomatic it would be, even now its not that simple.  Human behaviour/ climate/ population density/ Cultural differences will all impact on this.

Did the vaccines work as intended? Yes for the first variants, but that changed when delta  and others evolved and now they are not as effective as they hoped.

The current data shows although vaccines don't totally stop the spread they do limit symptoms and deaths substantially. 

Personally I had the AZ vaccine and am grateful for it. Will it stop me getting the virus-unlikely, will it stop me dying if I was predisposed to dying from it; 98% chance.

No guarantees , early data showed my age group had a 1 in 200 chance of dying from it if I contracted it. Has this changed maybe. Up? Down? Doesn't matter.

Enjoy what you have now but accept it is already changing.

 

[RockyTop]

5 hours ago, Paul A said:

Claims of deaths caused by vaccines might need to be treated with caution.

 

With respect to those that have actually died of COVID 19, I personally don’t know anyone that has died of COVID 19. I do pets know several people listed as died of COVID 19.

1) Motorcycle accident -cause of death = COVID 19

2) 10 years of heart surgery ending in heart attack- cause of death =COVID 19

3) terminal cancer - cause of death COVID 19

And It seams that no one has died of old age in over a year. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by RockyTop

[atdlzpae]

@ir_fuel Good point. I'll address your example tomorrow, it will take some time to gather numbers and my thought process into one, long post. 👍

1 hour ago, The Brahan Seer said:

Science doesn't tell us what is true but tells us what is false. The difficulty people have is they forget that everything changes too.
Lay people don't look beyond a report to see how credible it is and wether it followed scientific method.
We need to trust the experts who are doctors/virologists and know what they are talking about. They are credible and have vast knowledge and experience.

Science "tells" us both, but it's noisy as hell, because it's made by humans. And humans make errors... And sometimes they even lie.

I dislike when people talk down to "lay people", as if "doctors" and "scientists" were some kind of godly creatures. But only those who agree with us are godly! Wrong-thinkers are evil.
It leads to censorship of wrong-think - for example virologist dr. Robert Malone got suspended on LinkedIn for being skeptical about Covid vaccines.

The truth is, you'll find an expert/doctor for any opinion you can think of. So "trust the experts/doctors" means essentially nothing. There is no scientific consensus on this topic.

###

I identify as a tinkerer and an engineer. I care about what works in practice. And I think it's a goddamn shame that we didn't test ALL substances that are safe and suspected of working.

There were 42mln confirmed covid cases in the US. That could've been 4200 randomized-control trials with 10k people in each one... But no! Why? Maybe it would cut into someone's profits?

I'm taking Quercetin daily since 04.2020 as prophylaxis, after it was proven to work in-vitro. And the first study was released 11.2020... With 113 patients. 🤦‍♂️
My faith in "Science" was lost in this pandemic. And government institutions are failing all over the place.

Edited September 9, 2021 by atdlzpae

[Paul A]

Clinical trials are expensive to conduct properly.

The three phases/steps helps to identify which drug(s) are worth continuing research on, in terms of safety and efficacy.

Cost is not only in terms of money.

Cost in terms of time and lives lost.

Limited resources of laboratory time, human expertise time, money, equipment, researchers, analysts etc...... perhaps not feasible to conduct unlimited Randomized Control Trials.

Scientific papers need to be peer reviewed for publication.

[ir_fuel]

33 minutes ago, RockyTop said:

 

With respect to those that have actually died of COVID 19, I personally don’t know anyone that has died of COVID 19. I do pets know several people listed as died of COVID 19.

1) Motorcycle accident -cause of death = COVID 19

2) 10 years of heart surgery ending in heart attack- cause of death =COVID 19

3) terminal cancer - cause of death COVID 19

And It seams that no one has died of old age in over a year. 

That's just nonsense.

You talk about this from an American point of view. No way every hospital in every country in the entire world would fake covid deaths. Why would they? Not every country runs a "for profit" health care system, yet the results of the disease are the same everywhere.

Pretty sure number one is pure nonsense and hearsay. "I know a friend who has an uncle who ...".

[Paul A]

Google query:  "Are scientific papers peer reviewed before publication?"

Scientific findings and discoveries can have far-reaching implications for individuals and society. This is one reason why they undergo a process of quality control known as 'peer review' before they are published.

 

 

Does peer review happen before or after publication?

Peer review is the system used to assess the quality of a manuscript before it is published. Independent researchers in the relevant research area assess submitted manuscripts for originality, validity and significance to help editors determine whether a manuscript should be published in their journal.

 

 

[LanghamP]

1 hour ago, RockyTop said:

 

With respect to those that have actually died of COVID 19, I personally don’t know anyone that has died of COVID 19. I do pets know several people listed as died of COVID 19.

1) Motorcycle accident -cause of death = COVID 19

2) 10 years of heart surgery ending in heart attack- cause of death =COVID 19

3) terminal cancer - cause of death COVID 19

And It seams that no one has died of old age in over a year. 

Autopsy reports usually have a direct cause, a proximate cause, and finally contributing factors. When I used to compile mortality tables for the hospitals I used to work, I usually had a look up table that would group certain proximate causes into direct cause groups (for example, cardio infractions are put under heart disease which in turn is often put under the host of diseases known as old age).

Hence, covid-19 antibodies or presence could be construed as "let's blame covid-19 for any death if it's at all present."

That it isn't construed as such is simply the way covid-19 deaths occur; failing lungs due to blood clots and the resulting plunging oxygen rate (confirmed via intubated and an oxygen meter) is specific to covid-19 and not to old age, motorcycle wrecks, and cancers.

However, there is a more indirect way that's probably more accurate; simply compare the total number of deaths of a covid-19 year with a recent non covid-19 year. And that number is 20% higher for the US, about 40% higher for Spain/France, and about 10 times higher for India. That's a good indication that mortality rate for covid-19 is about 3% in a young healthy and fit population, and upwards of 40% in the least healthy population, if you look at who is dying.

My guess, based upon compiling longitudinal reports of people who have been seriously ill in the past, is that within a decade or so all these unvaccinated people that survived covid-19 are going to have a whole bunch of diseases that their vaccinated counterparts have less of. And so far, the data strongly supports recovered unvaccinated people having fairly serious symptoms. Scrambled eggs for brains and permanently injured lungs seems the lot for 40% (?!) of recovered patients. That's a lot more...about 20 times more...than people recovering from flu.

Edited September 9, 2021 by LanghamP