Slate tries to debunk “dies suddenly;” fails miserably then calls for a police state

[Joe Ferguson forever]

44 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

I think the major concern is that the shot was primary lipids and cholesterol and there were concerns about blood clotting and myocarditis. Combine that with the CDC coming out and saying that most people who died from Covid had comorbidities (diabetes, heart disease, obesity ect), then I think a legitimate question arises: could the long term effects of the vaccine be worse off than getting Covid for healthy people? 

 

I can't help but think of Vioxx. Remember it took the FDA over 7 years to say, oops! This drug makes you 200% more likely to die of a heart attack... Our bad...

 

Most drugs take 5-7 years of safety trials. Bc you can't have longitudinal results without long term studies. To pretend like we know the vaccines are safe over the long term when the amount of time necessary to do longitudinal studies isn't even close to having passed is a bit insulting. 

 

Merck withheld data concerning vioxx, was sued and lost.  Do you believe the CDC or any of the vax makers are withholding data on vax safety?  Bearing in mind the estimated savings of hospitalizations, deaths and dollars that the vax has resulted in since it became available (18 mil, 3 mil and 1 trillion, respectively)), do you feel that its release should have been delayed?  and for how long? Also, recall that the health care system was  nearly overwhelmed at the peak of the pandemic.

 

I';m not aware of a model that calculates the savings if a greater percentage had been vaxed early in the pandemic but intuitively it would be even greater.  This is supported by death rates and hospitalization rates in high vax areas vs low vax areas.

Edited February 11, 2023 by redtail hawk

[JDHillFan]

34 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

I do like NPR.  And I do like the article:  

Vaccines, good treatments and the fact that so many people have been infected, all help keep people out of the hospital. But every week in America, more than 2,500 people continue to die of COVID.

"Personally, I am not a fan of needless suffering and death," says Dr. Kelly Moore, CEO of Immunize.org, which does vaccination education and advocacy. A recent analysis from the Commonwealth Fund found that the vaccination campaign prevented more than 18 million hospitalizations and 3 million deaths in the U.S., and saved the country more than $1 trillion.

"We've got an effective tool that can prevent a great deal of suffering, hospitalization and deaths, and we should still be using it," Moore says.

 

Do you dispute the overall 12.7 X increased risk of death in untaxed vs vaxed that I linked.  What would be your upper and lower thresholds in order to continue getting vaxed?

I don’t dispute it. I question whether or not there may be long-term ramifications from repeated mRNA vaccination. Motorin’, above, covered it quite nicely. 
 

Unless I get diagnosed with something unforeseen I won’t get ever boosted. I have original vax and a year later, subsequent infection. I don’t pretend I have any real immunity left, but for some time I have been living my life as I did pre-covid which includes weekly unmasked flights and am not fearful in the least. I don’t care one iota if the person in the seat next to me is multiboosted or an awful red state hillbilly. I also know that the booster will not prevent me from getting covid or spreading it. The covid handwringing in Feb 2023 is for the redhawks and chigeese of the world. Almost everyone else has moved on. 
 

Why do you think cases are low in the absence of mass boosting/vax fatigue?

Edited February 11, 2023 by JDHillFan

[Joe Ferguson forever]

5 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

I don’t dispute it. I question whether or not there may be long-term ramifications from repeated mRNA vaccination. Motorin’, above, covered it quite nicely. 
 

Unless I get diagnosed with something unforeseen I won’t get ever boosted. I have original vax and a year later, subsequent infection. I don’t pretend I have any real immunity left, but for some time I have been living my life as I did pre-covid which includes weekly unmasked flights and am not fearful in the least. I don’t care one iota if the person in the seat next to me is multiboosted or an awful red state hillbilly. I also know that the booster will not prevent me from getting covid or spreading it. The covid handwringing in Feb 2023 is for the redhawks and chigeese of the world. Almost everyone else has moved on. 

you said you accept the death stats but your response requires that you do dispute the case numbers.  Why?  Oh, and 2500 people per week in the US continue to "move on".  As far as spreading, as a population health standard, do you agree that the prevalence of an infectious disease affects its spread?  ie the more prevalent in a population, the more spread.

Edited February 11, 2023 by redtail hawk

[JDHillFan]

5 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

you said you accept the death stats but your response requires that you do dispute the case numbers.  Why?  Oh, and 2500 people per week in the US continue to "move on".  As far as spreading, as a population health standard, do you agree that the prevalence of an infectious disease affects its spread?  ie the more prevalent in a population, the more spread.

So no thoughts on the winter case numbers vs low boosting numbers? I don’t dispute the numbers at all. Just curious as to how they mesh. 
 

Again, everyone is free to protect themselves in the way they see fit. To pretend that some are doing it mostly for the greater good is virtue signaling at its peak. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

14 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

So no thoughts on the winter case numbers vs low boosting numbers? I don’t dispute the numbers at all. Just curious as to how they mesh. 
 

Again, everyone is free to protect themselves in the way they see fit. To pretend that some are doing it mostly for the greater good is virtue signaling at its peak. 

not sure what your point was.  People are tired of getting vaxed.  So what?  Case numbers are down but no where near what would be defined as eradication.  Again so what?  Do you not see a potential for further waves?  I certainly do. And 2500 deaths per week is not great imo.

Population health is not virtue signaling.   It is science which you stated up thread is what you use to make personal decisions.  If the prevalence is higher and therefore the spread, so is your individual risk.  Anything that decreases the prevalence is personally beneficial to you and also the population as a whole.

Edited February 11, 2023 by redtail hawk

[JDHillFan]

5 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

not sure what your point was.  People are tired of getting vaxed.  So what?  Case numbers are down but no where near what would be defined as eradication.  Again so what?  Do you not see a potential for further waves?  I certainly do.

And population health is not virtue signaling.   It is science which you stated up thread is what you use to make personal decisions.  If the prevalence is higher and therefore the spread, so is your individual risk.  Anything that decreases the prevalence is personally beneficial to you and also the population as a whole.

I do see the potential for further waves - despite the bazillion administered shots. They don’t work very well. People still die from covid after getting them albeit at a reduced rate.

 

Most of the world has moved on but nobody is telling you not to keep up the good fight. 
 

And please remember to do your part and stay six feet apart. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

6 minutes ago, JDHillFan said:

I do see the potential for further waves - despite the bazillion administered shots. They don’t work very well. People still die from covid after getting them albeit at a reduced rate.

 

Most of the world has moved on but nobody is telling you not to keep up the good fight. 
 

And please remember to do your part and stay six feet apart. 

If another wave occurs and the healthcare system is stressed to the max, would you agree with preferentially providing care to those that are vaxed?

[Motorin']

54 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Merck withheld data concerning vioxx, was sued and lost.  Do you believe the CDC or any of the vax makers are withholding data on vax safety?  Bearing in mind the estimated savings of hospitalizations, deaths and dollars that the vax has resulted in since it became available (18 mil, 3 mil and 1 trillion, respectively)), do you feel that its release should have been delayed?  and for how long? Also, recall that the health care system was  nearly overwhelmed at the peak of the pandemic.

 

I';m not aware of a model that calculates the savings if a greater percentage had been vaxed early in the pandemic but intuitively it would be even greater.  This is supported by death rates and hospitalization rates in high vax areas vs low vax areas.

 

How long did it take to find out that Merck was concealing data? 

 

And you aren't the least bit concerned that the pressure to get the vaccine out at warp speed may have future safety concerns? 

 

And even if your maximalist stats about the benefits of the vaccine are accurate at face value, does that mean the actual safety of the vaccines should not be considered? 

 

 

[JDHillFan]

3 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

If another wave occurs and the healthcare system is stressed to the max, would you agree with preferentially providing care to those that are vaxed?

I would disagree vehemently as it has been proven for quite some time that the vaccine does not prevent infection, hospitalization, or death. Reduce the likelihood, yes. Prevent, no.
 

It’s not debatable. It’s science!!
 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

13 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

How long did it take to find out that Merck was concealing data? 

 

And you aren't the least bit concerned that the pressure to get the vaccine out at warp speed may have future safety concerns? 

 

And even if your maximalist stats about the benefits of the vaccine are accurate at face value, does that mean the actual safety of the vaccines should not be considered? 

 

 

Sure it should be considered and it is - that's why adverse events are being monitored closely..  But 18 million more hospitalizations would have completely overwhelmed our hospitals.  imo, rushing the vax out was an easy choice.  And so far, It looks the benefits greatly outweigh the risks.  Even if the vax was a Vioxx redux as far as adverse effects (and that appears extremely unlikely at this point) that would still be the case.

13 hours ago, JDHillFan said:

I would disagree vehemently as it has been proven for quite some time that the vaccine does not prevent infection, hospitalization, or death. Reduce the likelihood, yes. Prevent, no.
 

It’s not debatable. It’s science!!
 

it decreases all of those things significantly.  therefore those that take it greatly decrease the risk of the system being overwhelmed.  and those that don't, significantly increase it.  Science.  Logic.

Edited February 12, 2023 by redtail hawk

[BillsFanNC]

A repeat reminder from a Stanford public health expert that big tech censored because he told the truth. 

 

@redtail hawk as an MD you ignore science. Period.

 

 

[All_Pro_Bills]

45 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

A repeat reminder from a Stanford public health expert that big tech censored because he told the truth. 

 

@redtail hawk as an MD you ignore science. Period.

 

 

Specific and individual risk assessment with the patient and their doctor wasn't something authorities cared about.  Rather they were intent on imposing their one solution, which was insisting on the population getting vaccinated with a vaccine that doesn't produce immunity.  Rather protection against severe illness and hospitalization.  Two things you won't find as either primary or secondary endpoint goal of either the original Pfizer or Moderns trials.  And rather than patient consent with an understanding of risks of either taking the shot or not, coercion was employed.  And some wonder why many are skeptical and distrust the medical community and officials. 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

3 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

A repeat reminder from a Stanford public health expert that big tech censored because he told the truth. 

 

@redtail hawk as an MD you ignore science. Period.

 

 

Bhattacharya was an early opponent of lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and questioned the severity of the virus.[6]

On March 24, 2020, Bhattacharya co-wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?", which argued there was little evidence to support shelter-in-place orders and quarantines of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.[12] Bhattacharya was a lead author of a serology study released in April which suggested that as many as 80,000 residents of Santa Clara County, California might have already been infected with COVID-19.[13] The study and conduct of the research drew wide criticism for statistical and methodological errors and apparent lack of disclosure of conflicts.[14][15] The study was later revealed to have received undisclosed funding from JetBlue founder David Neeleman, according to an anonymous whistle blower.[16][17]

 

He's an embarrassment to Medicine and Science.  What a shill?  Ethics?  What are those?

[BillsFanNC]

2 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

Bhattacharya was an early opponent of lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and questioned the severity of the virus.[6]

On March 24, 2020, Bhattacharya co-wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal entitled "Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?", which argued there was little evidence to support shelter-in-place orders and quarantines of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.[12] Bhattacharya was a lead author of a serology study released in April which suggested that as many as 80,000 residents of Santa Clara County, California might have already been infected with COVID-19.[13] The study and conduct of the research drew wide criticism for statistical and methodological errors and apparent lack of disclosure of conflicts.[14][15] The study was later revealed to have received undisclosed funding from JetBlue founder David Neeleman, according to an anonymous whistle blower.[16][17]

 

He's an embarrassment to Medicine and Science.  What a shill?  Ethics?  What are those?

 

Wrong as usual. 

[BillStime]

1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Wrong as usual. 

Irony is dead

 

[Joe Ferguson forever]

4 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

A repeat reminder from a Stanford public health expert that big tech censored because he told the truth. 

 

@redtail hawk as an MD you ignore science. Period.

 

Remi

 

Reminiscent of Stephen Hahn, trumps FDA commissioner whop exaggerated important data by an order of magnitude.  Just like in every profession, there are good and bad.  Eric Topol is very, very good.  You might try reading his covid opinions some time.  He tore Hahn a new one and rightfully so.  Mind you, Hahn has never rebutted Topol on this article.  This is what he said:  

Nonetheless, you posted this data-dredging subgroup analysis on the FDA website with the headline statement "Another Achievement in Administration's Fight Against Pandemic." Your EUA announcement came the day after President Trump tweeted "The deep state, or whoever, over at the FDA is making it very difficult…@SteveFDA", addressing you directly with your Twitter handle.

 

It took 24 hours before you started to make a correction on Twitter. You wrote"What I should have said better is that the data show a relative risk reduction, not an absolute reduction."

Any decent 1st year Medical student knows the difference between relative and absolute risk.  I wonder if you if u do NC

 

Topol's (the most published medical researcher in history) suggested response for Hahn:

That is a grossly insufficient correction and does not represent the truth. Here's what you didn't say:

There are no data or evidence from prospective, randomized trials for convalescent plasma to support any survival benefit.

The data I am citing are from a subgroup analysis from a preprint, which is intended to formulate a hypothesis without any definitive findings or conclusions.

The 35% survival benefit, and 35 people's lives saved per 100 sick with COVID-19, was completely off-base. If the preprint data held up in a proper randomized controlled trial, it would be avoiding deaths of 3 or 4 people per 100 who would have died. We know that fewer than 1 out of 100 people who have a COVID-19 infection die, so it is impossible to save 35 people's lives of 100 people sick with COVID-19. "I made a terrible, monstrous error and I deeply apologize for that".

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/936611

24 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Wrong as usual. 

 

24 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Wrong as usual. 

Prove it Einstein.  Let's go!  should be fun. and by all means, keep citing junk science that can be easily refuted.

Edited February 12, 2023 by redtail hawk

[BillsFanNC]

13 minutes ago, redtail hawk said:

 

Prove it Einstein.

 

Not how it works good doctor. But since you aren't a scientist its no surprise that you fall short here. Again.

 

It's up to YOU to read and understand  Bhattacharya 's serology study and critique the weaknesses of the study.

 

Simply copying and pasting text from someone else that you don't provide the source for sn’t going to cut it.

 

So here's the link to the study. Please use your extensive serology assay development experience to critique the study design and conclusions, specifically your experience in lateral flow assay design.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v2

 

Conclusions The estimated population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection may be much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. More studies are needed to improve precision of prevalence estimates. Locally-derived population prevalence estimates should be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections

[Joe Ferguson forever]

1 hour ago, BillsFanNC said:

 

Not how it works good doctor. But since you aren't a scientist its no surprise that you fall short here. Again.

 

It's up to YOU to read and understand  Bhattacharya 's serology study and critique the weaknesses of the study.

 

Simply copying and pasting text from someone else that you don't provide the source for sn’t going to cut it.

 

So here's the link to the study. Please use your extensive serology assay development experience to critique the study design and conclusions, specifically your experience in lateral flow assay design.

 

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.20062463v2

 

Conclusions The estimated population prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Santa Clara County implies that the infection may be much more widespread than indicated by the number of confirmed cases. More studies are needed to improve precision of prevalence estimates. Locally-derived population prevalence estimates should be used to calibrate epidemic and mortality projections

Vital, undisclosed conflicts of interest are enough to reject his "work" without further analysis.  If your standard of validating data was adopted universally in Medicine, progress would grind to a standstill.  No one is well versed in all fields in Medicine.  The vast majority of care provided worldwide is provided by primary care practitioners.  They can't read every important (or in this case, not important) study with a fine toothed comb.  That's why journal clubs and consolidation articles on the most important recent studies exist. Those publishing these are experts or consult with experts in the particular field so that the conclusions can be summarized and the data trusted.  Those given that role are required to be free of interest conflicts and  widely respected and admired.  Bhat... is neither.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89204

 

As an aside, Vioxx was mentioned.  Eric Topol was one of the first to publicly question its CV safety. Where was bhatt then?

Edited February 12, 2023 by redtail hawk

[Joe Ferguson forever]

Medscape is likely behind a paywall for many.  Here's an clip from a 2020 article  on the esteemed Dr Bhatt:

The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and its HIV Medicine Association denounced the declaration, as reported by Medscape Medical News, and the World Health Organization (WHO) Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus called the proposal "unethical." But the idea has gained some traction at the White House, where Coronavirus Task Force Member and Stanford professor Scott Atlas, MD, has been advising President Donald J. Trump.

News > Medscape Medical News

Great Barrington Coauthor Backs Off Strict Reliance on Herd Immunity

Alicia Ault

November 09, 2020

 

On the JAMA debate, Bhattacharya said, "I think all of the mitigation measures are really important," listing social distancing, hand washing, and masks when distancing is not possible as chief among those strategies for the less vulnerable. "I don't want to create infections intentionally, but I want us to allow people to go back to their lives as best they can, understanding of the risks they are taking when they do it," he said, claiming that 99.95% of the population will survive infection.

"The harmful lockdowns are worse for many, many people," Bhattacharya said.

"I think Jay is moving towards a middle ground which is not really what the Great Barrington Declaration seems to promote," countered Lipsitch. The declaration does not say use masks or social distance, he said. "It just says we need to go back to a normal life." 

 

Herd immunity hasn't worked, genius.  Over 1 million dead despite the vax and widespread infections.  But what are 2 million potential excess lives lost by his strategy?.  People are still dying.  There is still widespread morbidity.  And we're going to need at least yearly vax for the foreseeable future.  So glad bhatt (and Atllas) weren't around when polio was gaining a foothold (and is again because of vax deniers).

...

Edited February 12, 2023 by redtail hawk

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, redtail hawk said:

Vital, undisclosed conflicts of interest are enough to reject his "work" without further analysis.  If your standard of validating data was adopted universally in Medicine, progress would grind to a standstill.  No one is well versed in all fields in Medicine.  The vast majority of care provided worldwide is provided by primary care practitioners.  They can't read every important (or in this case, not important) study with a fine toothed comb.  That's why journal clubs and consolidation articles on the most important recent studies exist. Those publishing these are experts or consult with experts in the particular field so that the conclusions can be summarized and the data trusted.  Those given that role are required to be free of interest conflicts and  widely respected and admired.  Bhat... is neither.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89204

 

As an aside, Vioxx was mentioned.  Eric Topol was one of the first to publicly question its CV safety. Where was bhatt then?

 

What part of read the study yourself and then provide scientific criticism didn't you understand ?