Coronavirus

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

There's no convincing clinical data to show that ivermectin does anything, no more than HCQ. Are GPs in Ireland prescribing vitamin D to positive cases and suspected cases as they are doing here in France? Because there's also no convincing clinical data to say that that does anything either. It's been noted by some commentators that the only people who are still referencing remdesivir (which you implicitly do by mentioning Gilead) are those who still insist on claiming that HCQ or ivermectin are efficient. Clinically speaking, they're not, just as - clinically speaking - remdesivir also isn't and is now recommended against by the WHO. And yet, anyone who doesn't get behind cheap cures that don't work must, ipso facto, be a shill for the manufacturers of expensive cures that don't work.

There hasn't been nearly enough silencing going on, to be honest. Self-silencing from people who, in their position, should be much, much better at critical thinking and data analysis than they evidently are.

Also, re your animal trials claim: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9792931264

[astfgyl]

There's no convincing clinical data to show that ivermectin does anything, no more than HCQ. Are GPs in Ireland prescribing vitamin D to positive cases and suspected cases as they are doing here in France? Because there's also no convincing clinical data to say that that does anything either. It's been noted by some commentators that the only people who are still referencing remdesivir (which you implicitly do by mentioning Gilead) are those who still insist on claiming that HCQ or ivermectin are efficient. Clinically speaking, they're not, just as - clinically speaking - remdesivir also isn't and is now recommended against by the WHO. And yet, anyone who doesn't get behind cheap cures that don't work must, ipso facto, be a shill for the manufacturers of expensive cures that don't work.

There hasn't been nearly enough silencing going on, to be honest. Self-silencing from people who, in their position, should be much, much better at critical thinking and data analysis than they evidently are.

Also, re your animal trials claim: https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9792931264

I take it you didn't watch the video before responding re Ivermectin and HCQ, because otherwise you wouldn't have missed the point of what he said entirely. If you are short on time, listen from the last 3 or 4 minutes for that part. Listen to him speak of the type of trials that he relies on for his info and the sample size involved and why the detracting studies are designed to fail. Don't forget that The Lancet had to retract their hatchet job on HCQ because of the made up sham company Surgisphere where they got their figures from, and also the submission made to congress about Ivermectin from America's Frontline Doctors, which also has a video doing the rounds (although I concede that they are not without their detractors). Not from cranks, but from actual doctors who have used it. I get also that Remdesivir didn't take off. I was using it as an example of how things work. The drugs mentioned here are not for the most part what that highly published doctor in the video really talks about anyway. The best source I find for things like the vaccine trials are the BMJ in case you think it's some weird rabbit hole I get it out of btw. So why are they giving out those kits in India? Because there is nothing to say those 2 drugs will do anything? Well maybe, seeing as we are all in masks with zero evidence they do anything so I guess nothing is ruled out. Funnily enough, Ivermectin has an EUA in the US now, but only after the approval of the vaccines. Imagine that!

If you don't think that pharma companies and governments are corrupt and capable of what I'm saying, then I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land and in a worse position than even I am in with my admittedly unhealthy skepticism around absolutely everything. You only have to look through the last few decades of history to see what these companies are capable of. Look at the UK health secretary caught outright lying about saying they trialed vitamin D when they did no such thing, and listen to Varadkar in the Dail saying there is no evidence vit D works as well, only a few weeks ago. If these chaps really wanted to save everyone, why don't they try these harmless treatments and see if there is any benefit instead of ruling them out saying they are unproven before falling back on a vaccine which is also unproven, with trials designed to succeed?

And as for the fucking fact-checkers, don't make me laugh with the ministry of truth shit. Mike Yeadon, head of respiratory research at Pfizer for about 2 decades was the first to raise the issue of ADE (Antibody Dependent Enhancement), which was conveniently sidestepped in the trials by using only healthy and low risk subjects for the trials.

"This is part of The Associated Press' ongoing effort to fact-check misinformation that is shared widely online, including work with Facebook to identify and reduce the circulation of false stories on the platform." Sweet jesus. Amazing they never fact-check the claims made by the companies selling the tests or the cure as part of the trillion dollar industry they are running. Amazing.

Edit: here is a bit of a fact check of my own about the trials and ADE: This quote from Dr Loretta Bolgan, who you can google to see who she is, from this article which I linked yesterday https://scenarieconomici.it/moltissimo-di-cio-che-ci-dicono-su-virus-e-vaccini-e-sbagliato-il-resto-e-nascosto/ goes some way to explaining that fact-check from the Associated Press

I read, I believe on your e-book, that preclinical animal studies, done for current covid vaccines, were carried out in a hurry and in parallel with human experimentation thanks to the concession of the fast track procedure but on animal models which do not develop the complication of covid with the consequence that it has not been possible to verify whether or not these vaccines can cause potentiation of the disease.

Yes, I will shortly review the studies Pfizer has submitted to the EMA as proof of the safety and efficacy of this vaccine. Beware that primates are not the correct animal species to test the vaccine precisely because they do not develop the serious and fatal complication. We cannot therefore know if the vaccine protects. Its function would be precisely to prevent people from developing this kind of complication!

Follow the science!!!... but whose science are we talking about?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

I didn't respond to the video because I haven't watched it yet. I responded to your other statements. If and when I watch the video, I'll respond to it.

Where are the "facts" for stating that animal trials were not conducted? There's no point attacking the AP with generalizations unless you have something concrete for your initial claim. The researchers quoted in the fact-check are bona fides. Ball not man, as you enjoy saying.

[astfgyl]

I didn't respond to the video because I haven't watched it yet. I responded to your other statements. If and when I watch the video, I'll respond to it.

Where are the "facts" for stating that animal trials were not conducted? There's no point attacking the AP with generalizations unless you have something concrete for your initial claim. The researchers quoted in the fact-check are bona fides. Ball not man, as you enjoy saying.

I just edited it into the original post there. So animal trials happened, but one which were designed to succeed. And fair enough with the ball not man comment, it's not exactly the AP I mean to discredit there, just the whole culture of fact-checking in general as a tool akin to the oft-mentioned ministry of truth. Who fact-checks the fact-checkers?

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

Edit: wrong tab 

[astfgyl]

Edit: wrong tab 

I missed that. Ah well.

Here is something really worth reading. Then watch it be violated to its' very core in the next couple of months. The coercion is already in full swing in direct contravention of the code that was drawn up after the Nuremberg trials, of all things.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejm199711133372006

Green pass?

Fuck off. Thanks.

[Pedrito]

You 2 need to bum

[Kurt Cocaine]

Shudder! The thoughts of the offspring... 

[Kurt Cocaine]

Fear mongering at its finest here.....

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/health/no-beer-no-cheer-st-20178882

Meeting up with a few friends for cans will lead to...

"We're giving the message because we know what will happen if people meet up. Some of those people will end up in hospital and some of those people will die."

[astfgyl]

Shudder! The thoughts of the offspring... 

[astfgyl]

Fear mongering at its finest here.....

https://www.dublinlive.ie/news/health/no-beer-no-cheer-st-20178882

Meeting up with a few friends for cans will lead to...

"We're giving the message because we know what will happen if people meet up. Some of those people will end up in hospital and some of those people will die."

Well by the law of averages he will probably be right about some of them ending up in hospital. But he is wrong about the deaths. All of them will die. Eventually.

Someone ought to furnish these lads with a chart of age-stratified risk and also a slap in the mouth before any more shit gets out of it.

[Black Shepherd Carnage]

It's quite difficult to respond to your long posts astfgyl, because you raise one main point, like a video or an article or something, and then in the same post you raise dozens of other points not necessarily even mentioned in the main thing you posted. Anyway, here's a kind of general response to the last few things you've said:

The Surgisphere scandal led to one paper that claimed to show that HCQ didn't work, published in the Lancet, but also to a preprint which claimed to show that ivermectin did work, and also to another paper, this time in the NEJM, about the link between cardiovascular disease and COVID morbidity. All three were retracted when the truth about Surgisphere was revealed. It's not really correct to call the HCQ paper a "hatchet job" by the Lancet. That's not how scientific journals work. Sure, someone fucked up the peer review process, and everyone was a little too eager to demonstrate that Raoult was talking shite about HCQ (because he was), but it's not like The Lancet commissioned the study, and it's not like they were the only ones caught with their trousers down regarding the ultimately shady source of the data.

In fact, the editor of the Lancet - Richard Horton - was the first to criticize premature communication about the efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine, stating publicly that nothing should have been said until the results had been peer-reviewed and published according to usual channels ( https://twitter.com/richardhorton1/status/1326100901405331456 ). He also wrote an editorial which I'm sure you'd agree with in large part, called "COVID-19 is not a pandemic" - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67362032000-6/fulltext

Yet, the Lancet are definitely an integral part of the whole medical science machine. But there's no clear over-riding narrative to be drawn from that fact; sometimes they seem to support big pharma, sometimes they don't. It's almost as if the world of science isn't actually black and white.

To the video; in it, Peter McCullough (who starts off badly by throwing up an instant red-flag for potential publication malpractice by boasting about being the most published individual in his domain in history...Raoult was too, partly thanks to him also being an editor of a couple of journals) recommends prescribing colchicine. Has there been a full clinical trial of colchicine? One, so far. Has it been published in a peer-reviewed journal? No, not yet. But that's okay in this context, is it? Hmm, lots of doctors seem to think that the risk-benefit of colchicine is too high to be prescribing it willy-nilly like that. Anyway, McCullough doesn't really spend too much time talking about it, but he does give the impression that it's just a grand thing to be taking. Granted, a lot of the rest of what he says is good sense, regarding better treatment, following up with out-patients, etc., and at least he takes the disease seriously, and also connects his suggestions to a strategic vaccination roll-out. So, all in all, I'm not entirely sure what it is that you agree and don't agree with when it comes to this expert you've rolled out; just sort of whatever works for you? For example, do you think he thinks the mRNA vaccination falls under the definition of a vaccine? Or does he also worry about some sinister, improperly tested gene therapy experiment being imposed upon the world? He doesn't seem to. He seems to just think we should give at least equal attention to treatment. I'd agree with that, even if I don't agree with his approach (in the vid and in the papers he quotes) which appears to be, "If anyone anywhere in the world reckons X has a chance of helping, then try X on your patients, it couldn't be any worse than nothing" (even though X may sometimes actually be worse than nothing).

And finally, as for vitamin D, since it's readily accessible but also potentially toxic in high doses and also not in any way proven as a treatment against COVID, it's probably good that its potential as a cure be down-played a bit. Want to supplement your diet with a wee bit of vitamin D in case maybe it helps you fight a virus? Grand, knock yourself out within the recommended daily amount. Want to stuff yourself with vitamin D in case you might have COVID or because you got a positive result? Really not at all a good idea, but just the kind of thing certain people would do if they started believing it was an actual cure. Ditto for zinc.

Finally, finally: animal trials of vaccines are primarily (not only, but primarily) used for testing the safety of the vaccine, and not primarily for testing its efficiency which, for precisely the species pathophysiology specificity reasons vaccine-skeptic Bolgan gives, can only be done in the target species, i.e., in this case, humans. In short, it's a poor argument for claiming that animal trials were designed to "succeed", since you have to be clear about what they were intended to actually show.

PS I wouldn't put anything past big pharma and governments...but that's hardly justification for blindly pinning everything on them either.

[astfgyl]

I get the point about responding to all of the seemingly unrelated points. I was just posting the video and the rest of it was completely off the cuff.  I had read Horton's letter when it was published regarding the Syndemic and thought it was good, and I was disappointed in The Lancet to see the publication and subsequent retraction when it turned out their data source was a sham. I get that it maybe wasn't their fault but it sort of was, too.

Regarding the doctor being an advocate for vaccination, they all are and that's no surprise. I'm not against the idea in principle myself so I have no issue with there being a product available for anybody at high risk of complications from infection. That of course is not at all the same thing as forcing it into the arms of every low-risk individual in the world. The vaccines are even being tested on infants at the moment. The whole push is wrong, when considering the fact that it is experimental and may not even stop transmission. The metric of success with this treatment was to stop severe disease in vaccinated individuals. Fine, offer it to the risk groups and they will be fine if it works, thereby reducing the death count dramatically. I know a hard sell when I see one and I always run a mile. The manufacturers have indemnity because the long term effects (even 2 years down the line, but longer time scales also apply. Actually the first shot in a volunteer is less than 1 year ago) are completely unknown. So not for me thanks but anyone who wants it, work away. The doctors have often recommended I get the flu vaccine too but I have the right to refuse so I have no issue with the thing being available. Regarding the vaccines being sinister, my suspicions with things like this usually begin and end with profit. Look at the state only settling some of the Pandemrix claims out of court in 2020, 11 years after the event, with the company having indemnity for that one, too. I don't think the companies want to kill us, because that would be a simple reduction of the customer base and would be bad business. Edit again: here is something around that point: https://www.businessinsider.com/pfizer-execs-highlight-significant-opportunity-hike-covid-vaccine-price-2021-3?r=US&IR=T

Regarding the animal trials, I get that they are a test of immediate safety, but not a great indicator of potential long term effects, such as the ADE which I mentioned but is well covered in this, published in Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-020-00462-y. So I will be very curious to see what happens when vaccinated individuals are exposed to the wild virus next winter. Hopefully nothing, and it's a roaring success. I might even bite the bullet and take the freedom jab myself in that case, but probably still won't due to the extremely hard sell.

Vitamin D next. I know that the benefit has not been proven for covid, but given its long studied link with reducing severity in other common respiratory illnesses and general level of safety, it's no harm trying. Same for HCQ in low doses and also with Ivermectin. If anyone is going to throw a new technology such as mRNA at us all without any heed paid to possible long term effects, then there should be a control group set up, rather than simply giving it to everyone possible as quickly as possible. That is no way to go about things in any case or in any type of experiment, which this is; a massive experiment. It also shouldn't be disregarded that at least one study has been published which indicates that antibiotics might be a better curative option than any of the above mentioned possibilities and that should surely be explored further, given the generally safe nature of antibiotics. I know the odd thick cunt will drink bleach or eat fish tank cleaner but unfortunately that will always apply to thick cunts with anything that is promoted as a possible solution to any disease and we will just have to live with that. Edit: here's a preprint about azithromycin and clarithromycin and their use as therapeutics which should certainly be further explored and also goes to show that the research on this whole thing in general, while extensive, is still at an early stage and needs minds kept open before going all in on the vaccine solution: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-181996/v1. I accept its limited sample size and preprint status but it still warrants further investigation at the very least.

Regarding governments, I think at this stage they must know they shat the togs and now they simply have to double down and keep overplaying the level of risk until the vaccine comes as it's their only way out without having to answer a lot of potentially career-finishing questions about what they did with the lockdowns. If they opened up now and everything was fine, they'd be fucked. It's damage limitation for them all now. Then there are those vaccine passports which have been on the cards for a long time, and this is just the right horse to ride that in on, too.

Another point about the human trials is that the volunteers were all healthy people under 50, who generally don't develop severe disease from the thing, so the results are extremely misleading due to the design of the trials themselves. If it's mostly the aged and comorbid who suffer the severe disease, how were they represented in the trials? They weren't is the answer. So saying 95% of test subjects didn't develop severe disease is not really the point when 95% of the demographic represented don't develop it anyway. Designed to succeed rather than proper scientific rigour. Good bit in the BMJ, this is one such example https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037.

I'm no 5G man or anything, I just have a high degree of suspicion around all of this from the beginning and have seen nothing as yet to change my view on it.

[hellfire]

I wonder how much text it will take before you two exhaust the sites SQL database.

[Kurt Cocaine]

The more they write, the less we read....