281–290 of 805 posts
We have multiple vaccines and two (EUA) proven oral treatments now.
Yes, but the sneaky government is offering those freely, so that's very suspicious to some folks that would rather have "the good stuff" off of the black market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? I don't know, what figures are you referring to and what do you think those are evidence of? > For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? Taken in isolation, not particularly, no. What you appear to hav…
I have scanned through so many forums reading anecdotal stories, also downloaded VAERS data, and I definitely see a pattern, but this is not enough of compelling evidence for anyone. But let's just focus on what could be causing excess deaths during summer. Source: https://www.euromomo.eu/graphs-and-maps/ Scroll to Excess Mortality See 0-14 age group excess mortality growth during summer (EU approved vaccines for 12+…
which doesn't mean kids were vaccinated at any relevant rate at that point. In plenty places they only started that August or thereabouts. There has been some talk of delayed infections with various things due to school closures etc before, I do not know if that had any relevant impact on death rates though, but would explain why they shifted to later in the year.
> and why specifically in younger demographics?
Looking at the 44+ ranges, those are way more above or close to "substantial increase" - as you would expect with them at being higher risk from covid. Higher vaccination rates help, but aren't entirely stopping it. Potentially also some other medical factors, not aware of any good data on them (i.e. delayed treatments, risky delayed treatments now happening, ...)
> Also see 15-44 excess
Delta is affecting them more, for at least part summer you can't assume them to be vaccinated yet (and even today, in the badly hit places the vaccination rates are far from perfect - here in Germany "people in hospital" and "percentage unvaccinated" correlates quite well between regions). Delayed treatments again might hit here too, again unsure if relevant.
Could there be something hidden in there: sure. But it doesn't seem all that obvious that anything is weird about these numbers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> However I think he misrepresent some anti-vaxxers: it's not a matter of trusting science, it's a matter of trusting scientists with heavy conflict of interest to tell the truth while most of us don't have the required scientific knowledge to evaluate if they're telling the truth. That's an excellent point - unfortunately people who are easily labeled as "anti-vaxxers" and perceived as uneducated anti-scince crowd q…
A number of people (myself included) would perhaps pay less attention to ivermectin as in covid drug if crowd would really take it and do studies instead of just publicly mocking people who are trying to look into it " A number of people—probably not including myself, if I'm honest—would take this statement more seriously if it wasn't a complaint that a thing which has already happened , and continues to happen , isn…
As I was reading the article, this is really what leaped out at me. There are lots of people and doctors who think ivermectin works. It's clearly a question worth investigating. Why are all the studies based on 50 people in Bangladesh?
That, in turn, is very strongly connected to the cost of running drug trials that will get past the FDA and patent rights. So it's not surprising that people end up being very cynical about this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You could try spreading the truth instead of bullying people? I do care about my mothers health you know. And if a doctor isn't convinced by a large number of studies I want them to explain why not rather than call me a conspiracy peddler. The way someone gets ivermectin is to walk a doctor through the evidence they've seen and then ask them to prescribe it.
I am a doc. I am also a medical researcher, but you (and most other people here) _have_ to realize that the vast majority of practicing MDs are _not_ scientists, and understand almost nothing when reading medical studies. And that's fine, because it's not their job. The profession is bound by guidelines and expert opinion. Experts do research, formulate guidelines, and guidelines get applied by practitioners. And no,…
Is the idea that doctors deserve deference because they are conditioned to submit to guidelines formulated by experts?
There is a lack of consensus on many long-standing, common medical questions, much less novel diseases. When I ask my GP about prostate screening, for example, he lays out the current state of research as best he can, but delegates the decision to me. Why is the COVID situation different, given that experts are still fighting through a figurative fog of war?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> many serious anti-Ivermectin arguments in the past I haven't seen any of these. I just run into irrational and offensive people like you that accuse me of wanting to drink bleach when I bring up the topic of Ivermectin. This article removed all doubt for me. I needed to see the thought process while pouring over the studies. You shouldn't make so many assumptions about people based on your political bias. Some peop…
> Some people want to understand. So go study medicine, assuming you have 10 years to burn and are willing to take a massive pay cut. The average HN'er probably knows how to program a computer and some of them may even know how to program one well. If a guy that runs a fishing boat with not even the most basic idea about programming, hardware, software, satellite systems, general relativity and integrating all of the…
It's not quite the same. The people who build / maintain GPS have a lot more reason to trust them, and as a result, people do.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does "modulate the immune system" mean to you?
For instance Vitamin D helps decrease the risk of a cytokine storm after a (corona) infection, and not overreact. (have no references at hand currently, sorry).
While reading this piece I got a little depressed that most journalism is just such utter trash compared to it. I've read so many articles on ivermectin and none of them gave me even ten percent of the clarity that this article gave me. Can you imagine if writing and journalism of this calibre was commonplace among practising "journalists"? And look at how this piece compares to the CDC's and WHO's science communicat…
He has an earlier piece whose point is that the WHO can never be accurate, because they always have to prioritize "sounding trustworthy" over accuracy, and random blogs don't.
Society needs a simple answer. Do this. Do that etc. Put on a mask. Wash your hands. Practice social distancing. Use approved vaccines. Take booster shots etc are pretty simple to follow. Likewise don't take non approved stuff. Easy to understand and simple to follow.
Nuances will likely hurt and confuse the common man. That's why the news and celebs and politicians etc try to keep things simple.
Dr. Fauci knew that a lot of the things he was saying might not be 100% accurate and yet he did it. The reason being that on the whole his message was a net positive effect on the public.
Likewise CNN made fun of Joe Rogan for taking Ivermectin because we don't want general public to experiment with alternative medicine. It's better to just stick to the proven stuff.
Basically, there is no choice here. Or basically two choices: 1. Be 100% accurate and risk confusing people 2. Be strategic about it and for the greater good.
We need a narrative and the cost is accuracy. We need to have more empathy for people who are the decision makers and have to make difficult choices.
Interesting read, I appreciate that the author isn't dogmatic and is open to discussion. However I think he misrepresent some anti-vaxxers: it's not a matter of trusting science, it's a matter of trusting scientists with heavy conflict of interest to tell the truth while most of us don't have the required scientific knowledge to evaluate if they're telling the truth. Pfizer and Moderna combined are making more than $…
> However I think he misrepresent some anti-vaxxers: it's not a matter of trusting science, it's a matter of trusting scientists with heavy conflict of interest to tell the truth while most of us don't have the required scientific knowledge to evaluate if they're telling the truth. But you don't have to trust only scientists directly or indirectly employed by those companies. There are plenty of subject-matter expert…
Academia is the last segment of society I trust on these topics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would be compelling evidence? Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? For waning hospital and death protection would Israel data be compelling? What about countless anecdotal stories of similar pe…
> Would excess deaths in summer in 0 - 45 age group, in Europe be compelling or is there some other explanation to those? I don't know, what figures are you referring to and what do you think those are evidence of? > For preventing spread ineffectiveness, would Gibraltar being #2 in the World by infection rate while having 99% vaccination be compelling? Taken in isolation, not particularly, no. What you appear to hav…
> According to your graph, excess mortality for ages 0-14 for this year is lower than it was in 2019, before the vaccine or the pandemic hit. And the excess mortality in the 15-44 age group is maybe 5000 people across 28 countries
See week 18-42, for 0-14 age group. Yes it has barely got to 2019 levels, but consider that beginning of year they died much less due to lockdowns, so summer high rate was enough to make up for 2019 where both winters the starting and ending saw very high climb. Again, it's about having that type of velocity during summer, not winters. It's 500-800 children compared to other summers. Since 3 millions of vaccinations given out it could mean around 1 out of 6,000 deaths per vaccination.
So all in all, it wouldn't be possible for me to prove it even if vaccine was causing a lot of harm? Because what else can I use besides excess deaths (as much data that as it's possible to gather), adverse event reporting tools etc, anecdotal stories. There's just no way.
To myself, there are too many signs pointing towards it, but I guess there's no point to really crusade at all even if it is causing harm.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the first anti-Ivermectin argument that you want to believe, but there have been many serious anti-Ivermectin arguments in the past. It's just that you don't have the background knowledge to digest them, but that doesn't stop you from wanting to believe that there is some kind of miracle cure that 'they' are suppressing. Now consider that this is just one example of a class of such issues and that there is an…
> many serious anti-Ivermectin arguments in the past I haven't seen any of these. I just run into irrational and offensive people like you that accuse me of wanting to drink bleach when I bring up the topic of Ivermectin. This article removed all doubt for me. I needed to see the thought process while pouring over the studies. You shouldn't make so many assumptions about people based on your political bias. Some peop…
It's great you changed your mind but I bet there's plenty of people who haven't. Like I wonder what Bret Weinstein now thinks.