Categories
Bad science Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, take 2: FLCCC conspiracies

The other day, I discussed why ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine:, basically a “miracle cure” that isn’t. The FLCCC, a group of COVID-19 “brave maverick doctors,” brings the conspiracies.

On Monday, I posted a typically lengthy, detailed, and snarky article about how ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine. What I meant by that comparison is that, just as 12-15 months ago the antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine was the repurposed drug touted as a “miracle cure” for COVID-19 that fizzled when tested with rigorous clinical trials, over the first half of 2021 the veterinary deworming drug ivermectin has become the repurposed drug touted as a “miracle cure” for COVID-19. Like hydroxychloroquine, which by the end of last summer I was describing as the Black Knight of COVID-19 treatments, an homage to (of course) the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, belief in ivermectin as a highly effective treatment for COVID-19—that will eliminate the need for vaccines, too!—seems similarly immune to having its limbs hacked off by science, the way that they were for hydroxychloroquine. This post won’t be as long—although it might be as snarky—and will deal more with the conspiracy theories that have cropped up around ivermectin. Unsurprisingly, they’re very similar to the conspiracy theories that cropped up around hydroxychloroquine. They’re even being people, people such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC).

Of course, I mentioned the FLCCC in my last post about ivermectin. The reason was because of its role in producing the latest “meta-analysis” of ivermectin clinical trials. Basically, Pierre Kory, one of the founders of the FLCCC, collaborated with Tess Lawrie, the founder of the British equivalent of the FLCCC, the BIRD Group. Both are groups that promote ivermectin, although the FLCCC promotes more than just ivermectin. For instance, FLCCC promotes protocols such as the I-MASS protocol, touted as an “in-home” treatment protocol for COVID-19 that involves vitamin D3, melatonin, aspirin, a multivitamin, a thermometer, and an antiseptic mouthwash. Another FLCCC protocol is I-MASK, which is promoted as an outpatient treatment protocol and involves ivermectin, zinc, melatonin, various vitamins, and fluvoxamine. The FLCCC’s most “advanced” protocol is MATH+, a hospital treatment protocol that involves—of course!—ivermectin, plus zinc, fluvoxamine, and a bunch of other vitamins and supplements, along with steroids and anticoagulants. None of these protocols has anything resembling solid evidence from randomized clinical trials to support it.

This brings me to an article that was posted late last night on the website of über-quack Joe Mercola, entitled The Biggest Crime Committed During Vaccine Heist. You can see from the very title the implied conspiracy, namely that evidence for the efficacy of ivermectin is being “suppressed” so that vaccines can be foisted on the world, to the enormous profit of big pharma. Of course, Mercola, as he was before, is very impressed with Tess Lawrie and the “evidence” of her recent meta-analysis. Since I already deconstructed that meta-analysis in detail the other day and there now exists another, even better, explanation why that meta-analysis is a bad one that, with a very minor change in classification of studies included, results in a completely negative finding, I won’t be repeating that analysis. I’ve already done that. For purposes of his post, I’m more interested in the conspiracy theories the FLCCC and BIRD Group are promoting.

The first observation I feel the need to make here is a simple one. Tess Lawrie promotes herself as a “respectable” researcher whose work on ivermectin is being scorned due to the nefarious machinations of big pharma and the ideological blindness of other physicians, which leads me to a word of advice. The last thing a “respectable researcher” wants to do is to be featured by Joe Mercola or to be interviewed on a podcast like Speaking Naturally. Why? It’s the official podcast of the Alliance for Natural Health, a pro-quackery group that’s rabidly antivaccine. I’ve discussed the ANH before. Let’s just say that ANH-USA is not just antivaccine, but promotes cancer quackery (such as Stanislaw Burzynski’s antineoplastons), among other pseudoscience. Particularly amusing to me has been the ANH-USA’s ranting against state medical boards that actually try to rein in quacks. Again, this is not the sort of group you want to appear with if you want any serious scientist or academic physician to take you and your work seriously. It’s just one step above Mike Adams or Alex Jones—barely.

Here’s the podcast:

Let’s look at Mercola’s bullet points:

  • While the list of crimes committed by authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic is a long one, perhaps the biggest crime of all is the purposeful suppression of safe and effective treatments, including ivermectin. This appears to have been done to protect the COVID “vaccine” program
  • The COVID shots were brought to market under emergency use authorization (EUA), which can only be obtained if there are no other safe and effective alternatives available
  • Several systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies looked at ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection. A rapid review performed on behalf of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) in the U.S., January 3, 2021, found the drug “probably reduces deaths by an average 83% compared to no ivermectin treatment”
  • According to a more recent review and meta-analysis, ivermectin, when used preventatively, reduced COVID-19 infection by an average 86%
  • Another recent scientific review concluded ivermectin produces large statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance

See what I mean? The idea is the same idea that I heard incessantly over a year ago about hydroxychloroquine, namely that the evidence for the overwhelming efficacy of HCQ against COVID-19 is being “suppressed” in order to protect the profits of big pharma, which at the time was developing new antivirals and, or course, the COVID-19 vaccines, the latter of which have been enormously effective and successful since the release of the first two vaccines under an emergency use approval (EUA) in December 2020.

To set the stage, Mercola goes on and on on about how a “gold standard review” of the evidence for ivermectin supports its use, reporting a 62% reduction in mortality due to the coronavirus associated with use of the drug. Again, that meta-analysis shows nothing of the sort, because of the principle of “garbage in, garbage out.” In fact, the highest quality clinical trials thus far all show no detectable effect from ivermectin on COVID-19 hospitalizations or mortality. He then pivots to how the World Health Organization is supposedly “suppressing” ivermectin.

Which brings us to the conspiracy theory:

But why? Why don’t they want people to feel confident that there’s treatment out there and that COVID-19 is not the death sentence they’ve been led to believe it is? The short answer is because ivermectin threatens the vaccine program. As explained by Andrew Bannister in a May 12, 2021, Biz News article:15

What if there was a cheap drug, so old its patent had expired, so safe that it’s on the WHO’s lists of Essential and Children’s Medicines, and used in mass drug administration rollouts?

What if it can be taken at home with the first signs COVID symptoms, given to those in close contact, and significantly reduce COVID disease progression and cases, and far fewer few people would need hospitalization?

The international vaccine rollout under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) would legally have to be halted. For an EUA to be legal, ‘there must be no adequate, approved and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing or treating the disease or condition.’

The vaccines would only become legal once they passed level 4 trials and that certainly won’t happen in 2021 … The vaccine rollout, outside of trials, would become illegal.

The vaccine manufactures, having spent hundreds of million dollars developing and testing vaccines during a pandemic, would not see the $100bn they were expecting in 2021 … Allowing any existing drug, at this time, well into stage 3 trials, to challenge the legality of the EUA of vaccines, is not going to happen easily.

Why, then, would the WHO “suppress” this suppose miracle cure for COVID-19? I bet you can guess where this is going. Enter Bill Gates!

Because, of course Bill Gates is involved:

The WHO’s rejection of ivermectin only makes sense if a) you take into account the EUA requirements; and b) remember that the WHO receives a significant portion of its funding from private vaccine interests.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is the second largest funder of the WHO after the United States, and The GAVI Alliance, also owned by Gates, is the fourth largest donor. The GAVI Alliance exists solely to promote and profit from vaccines, and for several years, the WHO director-general, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, served on the GAVI board of directors.16

And, of course, according to Joe Mercola Merck is in on it, because its patent on ivermectin expired 25 years ago and it no longer makes much money off of the drug, although it did receive a $356 million contract from the US government to develop an antiviral treatment for COVID-19.

Besides quoting the bad meta-analysis by the Bird Group, Mercola cites the FLCCC and its bad science. If you’ve been reading this blog more than a year and a half, ask yourself if this passage sounds familiar to you:

The FLCCC also points out that ivermectin distribution campaigns have resulted in “rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality,” which indicate that ivermectin is “effective in all phases of COVID-19.” For example, in Brazil, three regions distributed ivermectin to its residents, while at least six others did not. The difference in average weekly deaths is stark.

In Santa Catarina, average weekly deaths declined by 36% after two weeks of ivermectin distribution, whereas two neighboring regions in the South saw declines of just 3% and 5%. Amapa in the North saw a 75% decline, while the Amazonas had a 42% decline and Para saw an increase of 13%.

You might recall that this is exactly the same sort of argument that was made for the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine a year ago. Comparing the rates of COVID-19 deaths in various countries based on their use of hydroxychloroquine was risibly bad science then, and comparing the rates of COVID-19 deaths in various regions in Brazil based on their use of ivermectin now is equally risibly bad science now. Funny how the FLCCC doesn’t mention India. In May, ivermectin was being offered to every citizen of India as the pandemic was killing thousands of people a day in that country. This somehow lead to bizarre claims that ivermectin was “crushing” COVID-19 in India, claims based on highly dubious “analyses” supposedly correlating ivermectin use with decreased numbers of deaths in various regions of India. ultimately, the Indian health ministry ditched ivermectin as a recommended treatment earlier this month because—surprise, surprise!—it could find no evidence that ivermectin was working. No wonder the FLCCC didn’t mention India.

Of course, the FLCCC claims that ivermectin doesn’t just prevent and treat COVID-19. That’s not enough for them! No, the FLCCC goes beyond that, claiming that ivermectin also prevents the the condition that’s becoming known as COVID long haul syndrome. This is a syndrome that’s been reported in people who have recovered from COVID-19 but continue to have persistent symptoms for weeks or even months later that include fatigue, “brain fog,” persistent lost of taste or smell, persistent cough, shortness of breath, and other chronic problems. It’s estimated that somewhere between 10% and 33% of those who recover from COVID-19, even mild cases, can develop long haul symptoms.

Back to the FLCCC:

The FLCCC believes ivermectin may also be an important treatment adjunct for long-haul COVID syndrome. In their June 16, 2021, video update, the team reviewed the newly released I-RECOVER protocol.

Keep in mind that ivermectin is not to be used in isolation. Corticosteroids, for example, are often a crucial treatment component when organizing pneumonia-related lung damage is present. Vitamin C is also important to combat inflammation. Be sure to work with your doctor to identify the right combination of drugs and supplements for you.

Last but not least, as noted by Kory in this video, it’s really important to realize that long-haul syndrome is entirely preventable. The key is early treatment when you develop symptoms of COVID-19.

Of course, steroids, at least, are known to be effective in preventing the most severe lung damage from COVID-19. They’re no panacea, of course, but they work. The amusing thing is that dexamethasone, the steroid most widely used to treat severe COVID-19, is dirt cheap, having been off patent for a very long time. Although the FLCCC does include dexamethasone (or other corticosteroids) in its protocol, one wonders why the conspiracy theorists don’t spin conspiracy theories about dexamethasone being “suppressed” because it’s so cheap and pharma can’t make enough money selling it. Oh, that’s right! It’s because steroids aren’t being “suppressed”! That’s because, unlike the case for ivermectin, HCQ, and all the other vitamins and treatments other than steroids in the FLCCC’s various COVID-19 protocols, steroids have actually been shown scientifically to work. Funny that!

Before I finish, I’d like to revisit the video above of Tess Lawrie appearing on the podcast of the quackery-promoting group ANH-USA. I must admit that I nearly spit up my coffee laughing when she started out describing how she had formed a nonprofit company called Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy, Ltd. to “accommodate this new work we’re doing around ivermectin and other COVID-related research,” but, more risibly, how her company is “completely independent and has “no conflicts of interest.” Seriously? As I mentioned last time, she founded an organization, the BIRD Group, whose purpose is to promote the use of ivermectin! That’s a pretty hefty conflict of interest in my books! That’s why I was totally unsurprised to see her immediately pivot to the same conspiracy theory that the FLCCC and Joe Mercola are promoting, namely that there’s no incentive for big pharma to research ivermectin because it’s so cheap, which is true but misleading in that it is the grain of truth in the conspiracy theory that undergirds the other claims, namely that the WHO, Bill Gates, Merck, big pharma, and the rest are “suppressing” ivermectin in order to protect the vaccine program and the massive profits that it can bring.

Lawrie even uses the same bad science that I described above when she touts how Peru used ivermectin last year and “greatly benefited from it” but that a new president took over and stopped its use leading to—you guessed it!—a resurgence of COVID-19:

It seemingly never occurs to her that there might be a number of other causes for such an occurrence. In any event, if you’re using anecdotal evidence that confuses correlation with causation that’s as bad as what was used by astroturf groups that promoted HCQ a year ago (and are using the same bad arguments to promote ivermectin as well now), I really have to wonder how you managed to get a PhD.

Basically, Tess Lawrie is all-in on conspiracy theories. She even goes on and on about how the “mainstream media are colluding” to suppress ivermectin, because of course she does. And look at some of the imagery in the podcast:

ANH for ivermectin

Nothing like an image of gravestones in a cemetery to make your point!

I once wrote about how all science denial is rooted in conspiracy theories. The FLCCC, BIRD Group, and Tess Lawrie illustrate a corollary of that principle, which is this: If you sense that conspiracy theories are being used to support a seemingly scientific argument, you should look deeper. Use of conspiracy theories to support an argument, are almost always a very good indication that what is being promoted is ideologically motivated bad science and/or pseudoscience. I see nothing in the FLCCC or BIRD Group that disabuses me of that rule of thumb. That goes double when the FLCCC claims that ivermectin works based on bad science, while claiming that doing a proper placebo-controlled randomized controlled clinical trial would be “unethical” because they already “know” that ivermectin works against COVID-19, spurning such trials because “people are dying.”

By Orac

Orac is the nom de blog of a humble surgeon/scientist who has an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his copious verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few probably will. That surgeon is otherwise known as David Gorski.

That this particular surgeon has chosen his nom de blog based on a rather cranky and arrogant computer shaped like a clear box of blinking lights that he originally encountered when he became a fan of a 35 year old British SF television show whose special effects were renowned for their BBC/Doctor Who-style low budget look, but whose stories nonetheless resulted in some of the best, most innovative science fiction ever televised, should tell you nearly all that you need to know about Orac. (That, and the length of the preceding sentence.)

DISCLAIMER:: The various written meanderings here are the opinions of Orac and Orac alone, written on his own time. They should never be construed as representing the opinions of any other person or entity, especially Orac's cancer center, department of surgery, medical school, or university. Also note that Orac is nonpartisan; he is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical advice.

To contact Orac: [email protected]

143 replies on “Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, take 2: FLCCC conspiracies”

Just because they are shady does not necessarily mean their dope is sketch. All of their protocols have worked flawlessly for me since I added vitamin UPC BNT162b2. Except the one with the tumeric. That’s just dumb.

5/5 highly recommend.

@carbonaceous

Since you self-report as a likely unpaid experimental research subject supporting the world’s most notorious, heavily penalized convicted false-claimant and fraudster in the history of pharmaceutical manufacture, promotion and distribution still operating, namely Pfizer’s ongoing clinical trial of what you call “vitamin UPC BNT162b2”, it’s a good thing all that ‘magnetic’ and ‘mind control’ stuff with a garnishing of genetic/cellular function manipulation insertion using means like mRNA or vector viruses added for pseudo-plausibility of these theories, for example, is such outrageous, ignorant conspiracy theory, utterly implausible except in the most feverishly deluded paranoiac mush-bowl that can almost be called a mind:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/neurophilosophy/2016/mar/24/magneto-remotely-controls-brain-and-behaviour

How this is related to vaccines. I notice that is is mind control, too.
There are of course, clinical trial resutls. Perhaps you want comment them ?

@Quasimodo

it’s a good thing all that ‘magnetic’ and ‘mind control’ stuff with a garnishing of genetic/cellular function manipulation insertion using means like mRNA or vector viruses added for pseudo-plausibility of these theories

When newegg gets with it and my dna printer arrives, I’m going have a go at magnetoreception for myself.

https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/new-study-fuels-debate-about-source-of-birds-magnetic-sense-68917

My Finnish is limited to: iksi kaksi kolme nelja viisa and kiitos.

@ Arthur – You must be a newbie. Aarno isn’t a native English speaker and usually writes with much less typos/syntax error. He’s staunchly provax and a good debater.

But seriously, conspiracy talk, it’s got its own definitions and idioms. It’s like a game of Mad Libs.

Again, I’m very sorry for the slight, Aarno. I will be more careful with context.

I talked to a guy about the “cure for cancer,” which was a machine invented 100 years ago and sends vibrations which selectively kill cancer cells. The guy was an engineer, and the father of the bride at an extended family wedding. I asked what happened to this invention, which would have made the inventor billions. Snuffed out by pharmaceutical companies who want to sell their poisons. I finally got to the root of his view: his 15-year-old niece had died of cancer. He needed someone to blame.

@Matt G

I talked to a guy about the “magic bullets,” which would go straight to the organisms at which they were aimed, invented 100 years ago and are chemical substances which have special affinities for pathogenic organisms, to which they would go, as antitoxins go to the toxins to which they are specifically related, to selectively kill cancer cells. The guy was a chemist, and the father of the bride at an extended family wedding. I asked what happened to this invention, which would have made the inventor billions. Promoted by pharmaceutical companies who want to sell their poisons, it had achieved by 2004 a 2.1% 5-year survival rate in the USA*. I finally got to the root of his view: his 15-year-old niece had died of cancer. He wanted to see if there were any therapeutic treatments that had proven to lead to higher survival rates and quality of life for victims of the type of cancer and chemotherapy that his niece died from, since many acquaintances question him when unfortunately they or a loved one receive the unfortunately not very rare diagnosis.

*14 year clinical study results from: “The contribution of cytotoxic chemotherapy to 5-year survival in adult malignancies ”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15630849/

@Narad

Here’s a double header for you that you’re sure to enjoy:

From my post:
“He wanted to see if there were any therapeutic treatments that had proven to lead to higher survival rates and quality of life for victims of the type of cancer and chemotherapy [for that victim of that type of cancer]”

Thanks, Narad, for doing the research and making the effort to post two links to Dr. Gorski posts providing substantial data, sources and considerations supporting the approach I indicated above! Hopefully more people will have the critical-thinking tools and capabilities to adopt this informed approach and not fall prey to religion or sports-fan like dogmatic adherence to anything, but rather follow the preponderance of legitimate empirical evidence wherever it leads, adjusting as proven necessary to arrive at and maintain optimal outcomes.

Of course, achieving the above requires effort exerted over time, as you have demonstrated in directly affirming the correct approach the character in my post expressed:

From your link “Heh” (https://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/09/16/two-percent-gambit-chemotherapy):

“Any rational assessment of the efficacy of chemotherapy must be forced to include an admission that chemotherapy is only rarely curative in solid malignancies, particularly advanced solid malignancies. Notable exceptions [of particular special interest to Narad, surely, though the organs in question need not be cancerous, of course] include testicular cancer (which is what Lance Armstrong was cured of) and anal cancer.”

From your next link to Dr. Gorski’s blog “SBM”:

“[H]ow little better newer drugs seem to be than old drugs used to treat cancer to see that. I realize that chemotherapy is imperfect and doesn’t work well for a lot of cancers. Many of the drugs cause bad side effects, and, as I’ve explained before, in the adjuvant setting you have to treat a lot of patients to benefit relatively few. I also realize that chemotherapy is sometimes oversold.”

Thanks again for the valuable supporting data you reliably provide.

@Narad

“I already guessed last night that this f*ckwit’s dumbassery didn’t stop at ivermectin.”

I don’t recall making any comments at all in any way referring to Ivermectin directly or indirectly.

You’ve further re-confirmed the well-known fact and your well deserved reputation – the self-embarrassing feeble-minded vulgarity evidenced in you is progressing to drooling, Bidenesque proportions.

Perhaps you should practice thinking about your balls before tackling something harder, such as Richard Scarry.

Magic bullets nvented 100 years ago were genuine toxins, like salvarsan (an arsenic compound for syphilis). Biochemistry then was just glycolysis and citric acid cycle.

Quasi, Snark, I do not think it means what you think it means.

Gorski is a total fraud.

He pushes covid vaccines but here’s his tweet about right to try law and drugs that this law gives access to.

“Of course, claiming phase I testing is enough to show that a drug is “safe” enough for #RightToTry, …”

So the vaccines are great after just phase 1 but other drugs apparently are not.

I guess it depends on where he’s getting money from at the time.

The approved vaccines have been through phase 3 testing and are currently in phase 4 testing for adults and phase 3 for children.

Phase 1 tests are too small to show any results that could not have come about by blind chance.

So the vaccines are great after just phase 1

The approved vaccines have been through phase 2 and 3 trials.

I’ll grant you, notably for Pfizer vaccine, the trials are on-going, the initial trial was for people 16 years or more, and the inclusion criteria has been since then enlarged to 12 years or more.
But the results on the first recruited population have been published for that vaccine and were actually needed for the FDA authorization.
Quoting:

Here, we report safety and efficacy findings from the phase 2/3 part of a global phase 1/2/3 trial evaluating the safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of 30 μg of BNT162b2 in preventing Covid-19 in persons 16 years of age or older. This data set and these trial results are the basis for an application for emergency use authorization.9 Collection of phase 2/3 data on vaccine immunogenicity and the durability of the immune response to immunization is ongoing, and those data are not reported here.

Why do you lie?

@Athaic

https://www.jnj.com/coronavirus/about-phase-3-study-of-our-covid-19-vaccine-candidate

“General Information about the study
Nearly 45,000 participants around the world are taking part in this study.

Participants who join the study will be in it for about 2 years.”

“ENSEMBLE 2
Up to 30,000 participants around the world will take part in this study.

Participants who join the study will be in it for about 2 years. ”

Those studies take 2 YEARS to complete.

So my question is…why do YOU lie?

Those studies take 2 YEARS to complete.

Dawn breaks over Marblehead.

So my question is…why do YOU lie?

The only thing notable about what you quoted is that you clumsily tried to change the vaccine from BNT162b2 to J&J. And then you have the unmitigated gall to accuse Athaic of lying.

This goes beyond mere stupidity, which you plainly have in spades. It’s the behavior of a mendacious creep with poor reality testing. Go. The. Fuck. Away.

@Narad

The only thing notable about what you quoted is that you clumsily tried to change
the vaccine from BNT162b2 to J&J.

LOL. You are SO silly. It doesn’t matter which vaccine you want to talk about. Trials were rushed and sometimes phases were combined AND actually some are still ongoing.

Instead of spewing insults and lies you should do research.

PLEASE educate yourself.

LOL.

Drooling duly noted, sniveling shit.

You are SO silly. It doesn’t matter which vaccine you want to talk about.

So, when you’re having an exchange with one person about one vaccine and the status of its RCTs, it just doesn’t matter? Why stop at vaccines? Why not post an image of your water bill?

That’s an actual question. I’ll wait.

@ Aarno

Check FDA website.

While it’s true the results are there, it took me half an hour yesterday finding the link to the published results.
The FDA site could use a bigger arrow in the FAQ – “Clinical trials are this way”.
Or maybe I just missed it.

Pfizer also didn’t bother registering different trials for the different phases (I/II/III, age of recruitment). There is one big umbrella for all parts.

So it’s understandable if someone with limited time/wits/honesty (strike out the extraneous terms) comes to the conclusion that trials are barely started and on-going.

Not helping here, bureaucrats.

@Narad

Drooling duly noted, sniveling shit.

As usual, you have no science or logic based arguments so this is what you have left.

Why stop at vaccines?

Because we’re talking about covid vaccines.
Try to keep up, OK?

Why not post an image of your water bill?

Because it’s irrelevant. It’s possible you chose to take the vaccines based on your water bill (I wouldn’t be surprised) but that’s your problem. Not mine.

It’s really just a matter of simple math. If a study or a phase takes two years and you get injected with a vaccine that came out just 8 months after the start of the pandemic(any of them) then you are a liar when you say all the studies were completed.

Your crying and name calling won’t change simple facts.

“Of course, claiming phase I testing is enough to show that a drug is “safe” enough for #RightToTry, …”

So the vaccines are great after just phase 1 but other drugs apparently are not.

Find some venture capital. You may be able to harness that stupid to run a flying car.

Now we know why Scientism Dave is so incensed about science. He doesn’t understand any of it. We know what happens to humans when they don’t understand something. They get scared. When they get scared, they attack. Sweep it under the carpet and pretend it never existed. Ooooh. Carpet. A product of science and engineering.

@NumberWang

Sweep it under the carpet and pretend it never existed.

Speaking of sweeping things under the rug…Did you look at VAERS data recently?

Don’t worry, I don’t expect that you did.

@Scientism Dave Check ACIP meeting presentations. They take VAERS datta seriously.

Good god no. Partly because anyone and their dog can say whatever they like on VAERS. Mainly because the people surfing VAERS for reasons to demonise vaccination ‘conveniently’ ignore this.

I imagine they all read stories about alien abduction and crop circles with the same lack of cynicism.

@NumberWang

Speaking of sweeping things under the rug…Did you look at VAERS data recently?

Good god no.

Amazing. You must work at NIH.
That’s the state of healthcare and science in general in this country.

I imagine they all read stories about alien abduction and crop circles with the same > lack of cynicism.

I imagine you read Pharma press releases and studies with the same lack of cynicism.

Oh wait…you probably don’t read anything.

Nah. I don’t read Pharma press releases either. They’re basically advertising, which makes them biased.

I repeat, ANYONE can submit a report to VAERS. Finding reports of deaths after vaccination on VAERS only means finding reports of deaths AFTER vaccination. Not finding reports of deaths caused BY vaccination. Far more detail would be required to determine this. The Covid vaccination effort is unique in it’s scale and publicity. Health organisations are actively looking for danger signals. It is hardly unexpected for more people to report a more conscientiously than they might of for run of the mill vaccines. Not to mention the fact that elderly and vulnerable people will be over represented in the vaccinated population of a lot of countries.

I trust your abilities to competently analyse this data as far as I can spit an elephant. That’s my problem with anti-vaxxers in a nutshell.

Mr. Dave, your rantings might move in the general direction of coherent if you would refrain from just plucking quotes from a melange of sources, often not linked to and out of context, and try harder to show that you actually read them with a a bit of comprehension.

When will it sink in that Bill Gates does not need Big Pharma money and that he actually gives his money away to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the exact opposite of profit?

Since the B&M Gates Foundation and others formed by them use the Form 990-F because they are private foundations, it is difficult to access the actual real numbers involved.

For example, a look at https://www.charitynavigator.org will provide plenty of data regarding the much-maligned Clinton foundations, however, one will receive no numerical financial information of any kind regarding Gates’ Foundations.

Since you are the claimant regarding the topic, please supply info supporting your allegations.

Thank you for not wasting your or our time posting links to media articles advocating for or against Gates which don’t include actual links to solid original, source data (such as IRS statements, etc.).

Conclusion:
Christine Rose allegations FactCheck: Status: Unverified, likely advertising material or belief-based.

IRS website does have Gates foundation 990 form. Just check it. You are a quite ignomaus, are you ?

@Aarno Syvänen

The IRS does not have Gates Foundation 990-PF form since 2018 (the 2019 990-T form is basically blank).

Maybe current data is not available from the IRS for the reason stated by charityynavigator, maybe some other reason, but the data is not public now and it’s not my problem, right?

Aarno, only quite an ignoramous or such wouldn’t actually have checked it first like you should have but I did, of course, and seen that the current data is not there,

In any case, I didn’t originate a proof-less claim about Gates, his money, his foundation, etc,, the one who did was some softheaded hero worshiper with a feminine username that made the fawning claim that Gates “actually gives his money away to his foundation”,

Their 990 is over 1100 pages, and it’s on the website.

https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/A-01_BMGF%20Form%20990-PF_TR_19%20PD.pdf

A not for profit has no profit and no owner. The money it makes can only be used to further the mission of the NFP.

The Gates are not paid employees, page 2.

The foundation gave away four billion dollars, page 1.

The Gates are the largest donor, about six billion dollars, page 695.

The Gates are on the board of directors, and are paid $0, page 714.

If you were, for example, a certified public accountant with extensive experience in not-for-profits, you would know that the 990 is full of financial information.

@Quasidomo Check Gqtes Foundation website, then. They have accounts for 2020 and 990 for 2019.

This is another African should use their traditional knowledge of seed varieties stuff. Problem is, of course, that there is some malnutrition there. Gates foundation donates money to make agriculture of Africa more efficient.

it’s not funny. making jokes, or this attempt at recursive sarcasm is cognitive dissonance. gates is NOT a philanthropist, NOT a humanitarian. his oral polio crap vaccine project left hundreds of disabled girls, and the indian government expelled the crew. GAVI is a criminal organization, with nation state level immunity ensconced in geneva. are you familiar with the tetanus shot in kenya, the one with hCG, causing sterility? GAVI.

Gates didn’t invent the oral polio vaccine. That was Albert Sabin in 1957. The dangers of the oral polio vaccine have been known for decades, which is why the world switched to a 2-strain version in 2016, because it is less likely to revert to wild-type and cause disease.

are you familiar with the tetanus shot in kenya, the one with hCG, causing sterility?

Not this one again (low-contrast PDF).

this attempt at recursive sarcasm is cognitive dissonance

Please rephrase that using lambda calculus, because your pidgin isn’t cutting the mustard.

You are by far the most articulate, convincing and sophisticated early treatment disinfo agent out there sir. I give you credit for that, because I would guess there is no other compliment that you would enjoy receiving. In the end, if people get sucked into this, ignoring the obvious preponderance of evidence that points to a conspiracy against Ivermectin (gasp, I said the C word, trigger warning!), then they have only themselves to blame. So in short: you do you sir, and best of luck in your endeavours selling the wrong side of history to the unwitting.

Wrong side of history? I’ll take my chances. People like you said the same thing about me last year when I was pointing out how thin the evidence for hydroxychloroquine was (it still is, by the way). I like where I came down in terms of the right side of history there, and I’m pretty close to as confident that I’ll similarly come down on the right side of history with ivermectin.

BTW, I have a name for the fallacy you’re peddling:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2013/04/09/the-i-told-you-so-fantasy-or-the-fallacy-of-future-vindication/

Why don’t you do some research on Dr Joseph Varon who is the Chief of Critical Care at UMMC Houston.

Look at his treatment protocols and his success rates.

Unlike you he’s an actual doctor/scientist.

Show me the randomized controlled clinical trials.

Chiefs of Critical Care Medicine can become too enamored of their own protocols too. In fact, I find the news stories about him having worked a year straight without a day off more disturbing than uplifting. That’s a recipe for burnout and decreased critical thinking skills.

Ahh yes — because Ivermectin is clearly just a repeat of HCQ. Flawless logic, hooray for comforting false equivalences! Those doctors actually treating patients with success… tired, delusional every single one of them. Get some sleep you maniacs! I will accept a perfectly designed randomised controlled trial by either Oxford or Harvard or nothing! I spit on your observational studies and real world data, especially from countries with brown-ish people! Lies, I am right! I am always right! It is the world that is wrong! Yes!!

My apology for hurting your ego sir, although I am a bit disappointed at the lack of grace and gratitude with which you accepted my compliment and well wishes.

It’s like dowsing. It all looks impressive, the suddenly crossed wires, the poring over the old map and claiming that “this is exactly where the old water course used to run”. However, when actually tested fairly, it turns out they can’t find sh#t.

That’s why RCT and blinding are important

Now there is a conspiracy against ivermectin? If it works that would be great, but are you not at all suspicious about the push the drugs?

didn’t make any mention of the relative success of the ivermectin rollout in mexico and in different parts of india – if big pharma won’t fund studies, the global data analysis is all we have and its pointing to a big help. Nothing at all you have said has proven it is useless – ref https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/r93g4/

That’s because there was no success of the ivermectin rollout in Mexico, India, and the countries you missed, including Brazil, Peru, and a couple of others that escape me at the moment.

India does not recommend Ivermectin at present. https://twitter.com/deralteGaukler/status/1407205108601982976 (links to recommendations).

Also, I addressed the legal aspect of the alternative product claim here. https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/covid-19-vaccine-eua-prevented-by-hydroxychloroquine-myth-busted/

IN short, it’s inaccurate. A treatment, even one with better evidence than ivermectin, would likely not be a barrier to a covid-19 vaccine EUA.

Soooooooo….if IVM works so well and they have been given all of this money to develop treatments…AND they have so much experience in its manufacture…why are they not just assigning a low-level chemist to stick a moiety on it that doesn’t interfere with it’s pharmacokinetics, patenting it, and running to the bank with their new found windfall? It’s not as if there’s no precedent for this.

I find them a giggle actually. They recommend taking animal drugs! How freaking off base is that? I am so hoping soon to hear that the alt-reality industry recommends putting elephant suppositories into that special place. That anyone would consume the alt advice is sad but I do want some documentation that some people eat the animal drugs. Pure entertainment for the stupid. You have to track that!

Seriously, how can you reason with that lunacy! I just have to laugh at that group.

Well, 10 days or so ago, Mikey ( Natural News) sampled horse paste ivermectin because the human version was very pricey He is storing tubes of it in his prepper supply warehouses. ( spoken report).

If you want to know how altie followers react to “wisdom” like his, after the written articles on NN, there are usually many comments. His latest submission recommends homemade medicines based on dandelions** which his readers accept and provide their own examples.

Similarly, followers of AoA ,Children’s Health Defense, and Mercola respond to these websites’ information/advice following written articles by predominantly supporting the BS and giving their own unique additions – usually conspiracies and woo. Responses to PRN’s altie crap is frequently spoken call-in requests for sage advice and herbal/ supplemental/ dietary lore at the end of the shows. Also see Del’s HighWire comments.

Although a great deal of these responses are hilarious, I can’t help but be astonished at the lack of general knowledge and unquestioning belief in wild, bizarre plots by those whom I assume to be adults living independently. We also read similar nonsense at RI by trolls. It’s all here for posterity- the internet never forgets

** I knew ( non-impoverished) people from Italy who used dandelion greens in salads

@1000 Links to a Furlong

They recommend taking animal drugs! How freaking off base is that?

What university did you go to? (assuming you went to one)
I’d like to know which school doesn’t tell its students that humans are animal.

@Scientism Dave Horse is a much bigger animal than human. Dose for horse is definitely too much for a human. Even people without an university education should understand that.

@Aarno Syvänen

Horse is a much bigger animal than human. Dose for horse is definitely too much for a human.

Thanks Dr. Obvious Phd but I didn not mention doses.
Many of your are not aware that there are drugs that work for humans as well as other animals, so I informed you.

@ SD

Many of your are not aware that there are drugs that work for humans as well as other animals

You mean, ivermectin prevents horses from getting sick with Covid19? Indeed, I wasn’t aware of that.

I think “1000 Links to a Furlong” point was about formulation and usual prescription.
We French do have the expression “getting a horse’s remedy” – meaning, taking something quite strong in dosage and effect.

I will admit I was not expecting so many people willing to demonstrate with a literal horse’s remedy.

Has anyone tried applying turpentine to themselves to prevent infection?

If they were just bots with their weird attempts at sarcasm, it would be mildly entertaining, but I suspect that they’re human, and it makes me sad.

“If they were just bots with their weird attempts at sarcasm”

Hello, fellow organic non-bot poster. I’m horny.

Could someone explain why, if Bill Gates is trying to trash ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment so he can push vaccines, the Gates Foundation is helping bankroll the Together trial of potential Covid-19 medications, including ivermectin?

https://www.togethertrial.com

Maybe Gates is secretly exerting influence on McMasters researchers and other trial participants so that ivermectin will be found to have little or no benefit. Or perhaps the Gates Foundation wants to hog the ivermectin supply to treat parasitic disease in Africa and make trillions of dollars from those patients.

Should antivaxers be encouraged to take ivermectin* for Covid-19 prophylaxis and treatment? Even if it doesn’t work on the virus, it could help kill brain worms, symptoms of which often manifest in the antivax community.

*readily available at finer feed stores and online vet supply shops.**
**in my neck of woods, it’s sold at Rural King and Tractor Supply (which offers apple-flavored horse wormer ivermectin paste, yum!).

Whilst Covid denialsts and anti-vaxxers spread mis-information and fear monger, we learn a few things:
— J&J is highly effective for at least 8 months against variants including delta as are the other US/ EU vaccines currently in use- US News and World Report
— Covid deaths are predominately amongst the UNVACCINATED- CDC’s,Dr Walensky
— Even highly vaccinated places like NYC can have an increase in cases primarily amongst the UNVACCINATED where delta infection is nearly 50% – MSN
— Locales with low rates of vaccination are at risk for increases in infection from the delta variant- Dr Fauci

Anti-vaxxers and denialists with focus upon other issues and numbers without presenting the overall picture : vaccines have decreased the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths drastically since January 2021 and the rate of vaccination in a specific place determines the current rate of illness and death. There’s no way around these facts except for obfuscation, distraction and omission.

I love Fauci and his correct information. He should be on media 24-7 simply to irritate proud boys, anti-government cranks, and the swindlers who peddle their cheap wares and scummery.

Fauci knows the latest best information to help people live better — unlike … not gonna point fingers, but you know who you are. I find his quotes to be of the highest honor and credibility based on his voluminous work and experience. It so riles those who are paid to generate falsehoods.

Seriously! I take Fauci as credible and you ‘Not’.

LOL.

Somehow this blog got some attention from the anti-government crowd.

BTW — I am the NSA and I’m watching you! Don’t screw up America! LOL.

If you are interested … I have special tinfoil hats that ‘they’ don’t want you to know about.

@1000 Links to a Furlong

I love Fauci and his correct information.

Fauci knows the latest best information to help people live better

If you are interested … I have special tinfoil hats that ‘they’ don’t want you to know about.

One day you’ll realize that you’re in a cult. But it will be too late.

Indeed, Fauci has degraded government efforts to use facial recognition to track people with his ridiculous mask nonsense. I’m glad to see that you at least are a happy sheep, who likes the idea that his governmental masters always know where he is.

@ProGov Dave is Right!

Indeed, Fauci has degraded government efforts to use facial recognition to track
people with his ridiculous mask nonsense.

hah…”wear two masks” Fauci did that? The guy who sends money to chinese communist party so they can conduct research on viruses. That Fauci? Feel free to provide evidence. Sounds too logical for Fauci.

I’m glad to see that you at least are a happy sheep, who likes the idea that his
governmental masters always know where he is.

Uh oh….you sound like an anti-master/ anti-vaxxer. You might get banned.

@Scientism Dave Fauci do not send money to CCP. He did not decide who gets NIH grants. Decision is based on peer reviiew. Government is more complex than you can even imagine.

I love how clueless people think that NIH institute directors, not study sections and committees, personally decide who gets grant money.

One day you’ll realize that you’re in a cult. But it will be too late.

Too late for what?

Anyway, mirrors, SD, mirrors.

@Denice Walter

Whilst Covid hysterics and promoters of experimental pharmaceutical products spread dis-information and fear monger, we learn a few things:

— J&J is highly dubious and still under close observation “All the countries that restricted or suspended use of AstraZeneca and J&J Covid-19 vaccines”, https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/all-the-countries-that-restricted-or-suspended-use-of-astrazeneca-and-j-and-j-covid-19-vaccines-15e22cb0-3fef-4dab-9176-ebb7862fa6bb

— Covid deaths are predominately amongst the VACCINATED, by a factor of almost 4, for Indian variant (rebadged as Delta) – Public Health England,Tech Briefing 16, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/997414/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_16.pdf

— Even highly vaccinated places like Israel can have an increase in the VACCINATED no less than those who opted out, where delta infection is nearly 50% –
The breakthrough cases, or infections in fully vaccinated people, account for around 40 to 50 percent of new COVID-19 cases, Prof. Chezy Levy, the Director-General of the Health Ministry:

When asked how many of the new coronavirus patients have been vaccinated, Levy said that “We’re looking at a rate of 40 to 50 percent,” and said that the figure is concerning.
haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-covid-delta-variant-two-month-record-1.9935923

— The failure of ex cathedra, Exhibit “A”: “Fauci lies about lying about the efficacy of masks” – https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/fauci-lies-about-lying-about-the-efficacy-of-masks/ar-AALhCrp

Covid hysterics and promoters of experimental pharmaceutical products focus upon other issues and numbers without presenting the overall picture : Correlation is not equal to causation, even if vaccines are presented as having decreased the number of cases slightly less than and more or less at the same times as has happened periodically since this began, with similar corresponding fluctuations in hospitalisations and deaths since January 2020 and the rate of vaccination in a specific place cannot be used to determine the current rate of illness and death. There’s no way around these facts except for obfuscation, distraction and omission. An example: https://youtu.be/TtOu7jx3snQ

Covid deaths are predominately amongst the VACCINATED, by a factor of almost 4, for Indian variant (rebadged as Delta) – Public Health England,Tech Briefing 16

Where in the report is this factoid to be found? A quick skim didn’t turn it up for me.

@Narad
“Where in the report is this factoid to be found? A quick skim didn’t turn it up for me.”

That factoid per se is not to be found overtly as far as I know. It’s derived from:
page 12, “Table 4. Attendance to emergency care and deaths by vaccination status among Deltaconfirmed cases (sequencing andgenotyping)in England, 1 February 2021 to 14June2021.”.

Directly from Table 4:
Definitive positive cases with specimen:
Unvaccinated cases = 35,521
Vaccinated cases = almost certainly between 10,195 and 17,656 (see the footnotes)
Deaths, raw numbers, not normalised: 34 non-vaccinated deaths, 37 vaccinated deaths.

So it looks like at best, the (noramlised) death rate for Delta/Indian variant in unvaccinated vs vaccinated in England is similar to the recent infection rate (which is rising now) seen in Israel as reported by and appears in published MOH data there.

Quasimodo:

Covid deaths are predominately amongst the VACCINATED, by a factor of almost 4, for Indian variant (rebadged as Delta)

In the Table 4 of the report that you earlier, there were a total of 34 deaths from COVID Delta in the unvaccinated, and 37 in the vaccinated:
1 (= 21 days post shot 1) and
26 (>= 14 days post shot 2).

I’m not sure how you get 4 out of 37/34.

Directly from Table 4:
Definitive positive cases with specimen:
Unvaccinated cases = 35,521
Vaccinated cases = almost certainly between 10,195 and 17,656 (see the footnotes)

The numbers of vaccinated cases you quote aren’t in the table, and I’m not sure how you get those numbers. From the table, the numbers of vaccinated cases are:
4,094 (= 21 days post shot 1) and
4,087 (>= 14 days post shot 2).

When I add them all up I get 17,642, not 17,656, and I can’t see how any additive combination of the numbers can sum to 10,195.

But those numbers, cases or deaths, aren’t really useful to make the argument you want to make. For that you’d need the cases or deaths/million people in the relevant populations.

@Quasidomo, From your link:
“The SIREN study is a cohort of National Health Service healthcare workers, including 135 sites and 44,546 participants across the UK, 35,710* in England, who remain under activefollow-up with PCR testing every 2 weeks for COVID-19 by PCR. This cohort had a high seropositivity on recruitment (30% before the second wave) and is now highly vaccinated(95%). The incidence of new infections and potential reinfections in SIREN is monitored and would be expected to rise if a new variant became highly prevalent and was able to escape predominantly vaccine-derived immunity. During the period of time that Delta became prevalent, there has been no increase in PCR-positive participants in the SIREN cohort overall (Figure 9) and reinfections remain at very low numbers in individuals previously either PCR positive or seropositive (Figure 9). Of the 20 participants with a newPCR positive since April 2021 in the SIREN cohort overall, 13 (65%) occurred 14 days or more following their second vaccine dose. Figure 12 shows the monthly frequency of potential reinfection events within SIREN.”
This was an actual followup study, not a random citation.
J&J vaccine is still used in US:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/janssen.html
A suspended vaccine could be resumed, you know. Relying a journo ia not a good idea, any case.
As for Fauci, he changed his mind when new facts came in (facts may not change, but find new facts al the time)
It is again experimental, I see. We have clinical trials with four month safety followup. and hundred million vaccinations. Hardly experimental, I would say.

@prl
No argument with what you’re saying, the data presentation in the source is a hot mess – even the simple 34/37 isn’t presented clearly.

If I could, I would edit my comment above to state nothing more than the 34/37 numbers and to say that for me and others who pointed this data out to me, the problem is the data presentation format – I’m not questioning the actual data itself, but why is it not presented more clearly? Why is the data not normalised in some conventional way? How hard is it to add a column for “Vaccinated” so that one doesn’t have to derive it from the stated “Total deaths” – “Unlinked” – “Vaccinated”?

In regards to the ratio of vaccinated to unvaccinated in the report, if you have a group of say 60,000 people who were infected, they were all infected with Delta, and out of the 60,000 10,000(?) – 17,000(?) [ambiguity in the source] were vaccinated and 35,000 were unvaccinated and after all this, the report only says “1 unlinked death and 34 vaccinated deaths” isn’t something missing?

This is a public report by a national authority, or am I wrong?

If some data scientist on here wants to thrash me and masses of other people by correctly pointing out how we can’t read a data table, and show us what the data says and why we read it wrong, that’s very nice and helpful – but why couldn’t the qualified professionals who are paid to present this data to the public do it in the first place?

Why not clearly state something like “Of those infected with Delta that we studied, XU deaths were in unvaccinated, which was YU percent of unvaccinated. XV deaths were in Vaccinated, which was YV percent of vaccinated”?

The Israeli MOH data I quoted is an example for presenting the data well in this case.

Quasi, when you begin with

Whilst Covid hysterics and promoters of experimental pharmaceutical products spread dis-information and fear monger

you’re practically screaming your priors, enough to make one pause and wonder whether or not continuing the argument is worthwhile.

“Covid deaths are predominately amongst the VACCINATED, by a factor of almost 4, for Indian variant (rebadged as Delta) – Public Health England,Tech Briefing 16, ”

Your link does not support that claim. On the contrary, it says that vaccination is highly effective against the delta variant, and only slightly less effective than against alpha.

It also shows that number of cases, number of A&E cases, number of overnight admission cases, and number of deaths are all much higher among the unvaccinated. If there’s an exception it’s that the deaths among the vaccinated, especially if you include the one-dose vaccinated and very recently vaccinated, were as high.

But the sample size is too small to be meaningful, and it doesn’t take into account that people with the delta variant are not a random sample. For example they likely travel abroad, are of Indian ethnicity, and got COVID in an educational setting.

@prl

“I’m not sure how you get 4 out of 37/34.”

The overwhelming majority of cases were in the unvaccinated, but the death count (37/34) shows that deaths are over-represented in the vaccinated. But the number is too small draw significant conclusions.

Quasimodo appears to be focusing on the fact that, while total cases in the vaccinated are lower, the case fatality rate is much higher (I’ll accept their math for now). However, they are failing to consider the stark demographic differences between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. The vaccinated, as a whole and especially those having received two doses, is older and at much higher risk of Covid complications than the unvaccinated. 93% of those over 50 have been vaccinated with both doses as of a week ago. Those aged 40-49 are only slightly above 50% fully vaccinated (and quite possibly less than 50% when you factor in the two weeks after the second dose). 90% of those 18+ at higher risk of Covid complications have received a second dose.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/07/COVID-19-weekly-announced-vaccinations-01-July-2021.pdf

Given those differences in demographics, it is hardly surprising that the CFR is higher in those vaccinated. If age and risk were accounted for in the report, Quasimodo’s argument would fall apart.

In regards to the Israeli numbers: 85% of the adult population is vaccinated, but only 50% of cases in adults are in the vaccinated. I did the calculations in a different thread, but that equates to a protection from infection of about 82%. That’s still quite high, and doesn’t even factor in the people who previously had Covid but were never vaccinated.

@W. Kevin Vicklund

In regards to the Israeli numbers: 85% of the adult population is vaccinated, but
only 50% of cases in adults are in the vaccinated.

Did you seriously just write only 50%?

W. Kevin Vicklund:

Quasimodo’s argument would fall apart.

I hadn’t noticed that he had much of one to start with.

@Scientism Dave As usual, you not do much thinking. As Kevin has explained any number of times, fatality rate is covid cases per number of vaccinated / unvaccinated.
If we have more vaccinated people than unvaccinated, we would have more COVID among them, even if the fatality rate islower.

@ SD

(answering to W. Kevin Vicklund)

Did you seriously just write only 50%?

Well, yes. It’s that happens when more and more people get vaccinated.
I will even predict that, should the vaccination rate reach 100%, then 100% of new infection cases will be among vaccinated people.

What we need is the hard numbers, to make sense of this metric.
Kevin already wrote lengthily about this.
If only 10% of the population was newly infected, over the considered period, and the vax rate among the full population is at 85%, with a vaccine effectiveness in the 80-90% range, then finding that half the infected people were vaccinated is normal and mathematic.

I think you and the other trolls are willfully confusing
“half the infected people were vaccinated”
with
“half the vaccinated people were infected”.

( via Dr DG’s twitter)

Walach et al 2021 in Vaccines retracted

Skeptical Raptor posted an article about this yesterday: dodgy journal, bad study about the death rate of people vaccinated against Covid.

This may have got lost/ sorry if a double

( Dr DG’s twitter(
Walach et al 2021 in Vaccines retracted

Skeptical Raptor posted about this bad study in a bad journal yesterday

@ DW — thanks for the update! Read the retraction and reason seems clear that data was misinterpreted to condemn those who took the vaccine and were claimed to have succumbed from it without evidence. I suppose they all died in car crashes.

Interesting that this study has been hyped for a few weeks even before it’s official publication in a squalid magazine.

This is just too easy to evaluate. But but but … someone said something and it was read with different interpretations! Of course, mainstream science will be berated for ‘silencing’ someone’s effort.

Clearly, some need cover and coverage whether it is right or wrong.

Do we have classes for knowing good evidence from bad? I should make an app for that.

The BS rating has arrived!

Thanks for posting good info!

You’re welcome!

We should create a system of ratings for alt med / anti-vax mis-information. May I suggest a list of candidates in no particular rank order?
not even wrong, RONG!, crap, time wasting BS, dim witted BS, dodgy BS, prime BS, ‘our worst nightmare’, from the brain trust at ( name suspect website/ organisation), OMFG no!
I imagine Narad and others can provide additional worthy selections.

DW: When I was in college “crazy things on the Internet” were rated on the Time Cube scale (an ancient Internet artifact of one guy’s ‘theory’ that time was a cube), from 0 to 1 Time Cubes (where 1 is “utterly out of touch with anything even vaguely resembling reality”).

Perhaps something similar?

Dr. Bret Weinstein also supports the claims of the lab leak hypothesis. How credible do you think such claims to be, or is the evidence at hand insufficient to support that claim? Without a direct admission or proof from the lab itself, it’s technically not possible to prove the claim is incorrect. However, we should assume the parties involved are “innocent until proven guilty,” and as this action would be unfalsifiable if it’s untrue, then it’s just needlessly adding more pathos to his arguments. Is he just being contrarian for the sake of creating controversy?

The Wuhan lab has been doing work on bat cornavviruses for a long time. Genome sequences of the viruses it has discovered have been published promptly. There has been no published sequence from the lab that has better identity to SARS-COV-2 than RaTG13, which is 96.1% identical overall. Some other viruses have closer identity in certain regions. 96.1% means there are almost 1200 point differences between SARS-CoV-2 and RaTG13. I regard that as fairly compelling evidence against the lab leak imaginings.

Without a direct admission or proof from the lab itself, it’s technically not possible to prove the claim is incorrect.

Again? It’s possible demonstrate that the lab-leak bugbear is pretty freaking unlikely. Moreover, it’s a claim of conspiratorial opportunity: as far as I know, nobody pulled this shit with MERS or the first SARS.

LOL

Hey bud, found that wild bat with covid-19 yet?
Didn’t think so.

@Scientism Dave None have seen a human with Wuhan lab corona virus either

@Aarno Syvänen

None have seen a human with Wuhan lab corona virus either

LOL
184+ million cases in humans, starting from the Wuhan region.
0 bats found in the wild.

Yeah bro, I’m sure it didn’t come from the coronavirus lab.

I would go with Dr. Bret Weinstein.
His IQ is probably higher than that of the author of this blog and his followers put together.

I would go with Dr. [*sic*] Bret Weinstein.
His IQ is probably higher than that of the author of this blog and his followers put together.

Maybe you should step up to Marilyn vos Savant for your healthcare advice.

@ SD

“What university did you go to? (assuming you went to one)
I’d like to know which school doesn’t tell its students that humans are animal.”

Maybe you eat your dinner from a bowl on the floor but you know others (like me) don’t. That’s kind of where I draw a reasonable line between ‘animals’.

Also — eating drugs specifically for horses, and I would say recommending them for use because they are cheaper, is the derivation of the animal post. Do you understand that horses are not humans even though both might be animals? One could even go so far as to note that both animals eat food out of a sack but resemblances beyond that lack nuance.

Vaccine or Ivermectin deworming paste — easy choice. I chose the vaccine and feel healthy as an American.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.html

I hope this clears up some your ignorance but know it won’t.

@1000 Links

Maybe you eat your dinner from a bowl on the floor but you know others (like me) don’t. > That’s kind of where I draw a reasonable line between ‘animals’.

That’s brilliant. You should teach biology at Wayne State.

Do you understand that horses are not humans even though both might be animals?

Wow. I did not make that claim but again, that’s a profound observation.

Vaccine or Ivermectin deworming paste — easy choice. I chose the vaccine and feel healthy as an American.

Brilliant AND patriotic.

I hope this clears up some your ignorance but know it won’t.

Your post was amazing. So much information to digest.
Now I know that when there is a viral pandemic I should just sit at home and wait for rushed vaccines instead of trying a drug that has been approved for human use 20 years ago and which has anti-viral properties.

Maybe you eat your dinner from a bowl on the floor but you know others (like me) don’t. That’s kind of where I draw a reasonable line between ‘animals’.

That’s brilliant. You should teach biology at Wayne State.

I recommend that you not teach anywhere.

Do you understand that horses are not humans even though both might be animals?

Wow. I did not make that claim but again, that’s a profound observation.

I did not claim that you made that claim. It’s really not that profound.

Vaccine or Ivermectin deworming paste — easy choice. I chose the vaccine and feel healthy as an American.

Brilliant AND patriotic.

Indeed and a good way to be healthy.

I hope this clears up some your ignorance but know it won’t.

Your post was amazing. So much information to digest. Now I know that when there is a viral pandemic I should just sit at home and wait for rushed vaccines instead of trying a drug that has been approved for human use 20 years ago and which has anti-viral properties.

Take all the time you need to digest. Please be mindful that horses are not humans and taking drugs in horse proportions can mess you up! (I know — you didn’t make that claim).

In the meantime, you could also wear a mask, social distance, and sanitize your personal space. I wouldn’t recommend huffing Lysol though.

Ivermectin hasn’t shown itself to be a cure or treatment of determined value for Covid. At least there is now proper science involved to look at the claims and possibility. As good public health policy, it would be improper to recommend any old drug or treatment, proscribed by any ‘ol who to treat Covid. At the moment NIH doesn’t object to it’s use. Feel free to treat yourself with a good dose of horse paste.

https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

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

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/04/08/ivermectin-covid-drug/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2777389

Sometimes beliefs in one area of concern reflect positions in other realms-

The Hill, today-
67% of adults in the US have at least one vaccine
86% of Democrats and 47% of Republicans have at least one jab
6% of Democrats say they most likely will not get vaccinated whilst 47% of Republicans say they most likely will not

So as naysayers- anti-vaxxers, alt med folk, contrarians and political opponents- think of myriad ways to question vaccines, vaccine safety, vaccine supporters, governmental vaccine programmes, vaccine studies- a large number of people continue to reject vaccines or wait AND the virus spreads amongst the unvaccinated especially in strongholds of politically aligned areas AND variants get a better chance AND more people sicken and die.

The internet can provide maps, lists and figures about where people are doing better vs where they are doing worse. Avoiding resources like these is obfuscation.
Vaccine hesitancy may exist all over but if they live where large numbers of people are already vaccinated, they will not have a major effect on rates of illness/ death/ variants as they “free ride” on others’ enhanced immunity: they will not be so lucky in places with low rates of vaccination.

Considering the fact that the “Delta” variant has a much lower death rate than the original I think unvaccinated will be just fine.

You, of course, cannot give any citation to support your claim.

Considering the fact that the “Delta” variant has a much lower death rate than the original I think unvaccinated will be just fine.

Please go test it out yourself.

It’s early to get data on that, but here are some numbers from the UK.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/29/who-is-most-at-risk-from-the-delta-variant.html

Number crunching the latest data from England, 92,029 cases were analyzed between early February and mid-June and were attributed to the delta variant.

Almost 82,500 of these total cases were recorded in people under 50 years old and a majority (53,822 cases) were found in unvaccinated individuals.

Among those cases in the unvaccinated cohort, the vast majority were in the under-50 age group (52,846 cases) and only 976 cases were in the over-50s.

Nonetheless, the data showed that there have been 117 deaths among people in England who had the delta variant with the majority being in the over-50 age group.

There have been eight fatalities among the under-50s with six of them in unvaccinated individuals and the other two in people who had received one dose.

So that’s a 0.11″% case mortality rate for unvaccinated people under 50, which is a large portion of the as yet unvaccinated population in the U.S.

And it’s more infectious so it’s going to spread more rapidly in areas with a low vaccination rate.

@Aarno Syvänen

The UK delta study has been LITERALLY posted here.
And you STILL wonder where did the number come from?
Jesus

@Narad

You should go get your booster shot. Make sure to force your sheep family to also get them.

Need my pharma stocks to go to the moon.

from ABC’s Greg Langer, today:
30% poll respondents were vaccine hesitant saying that they were unlikely to get the vaccine
of them, 73% said that they thought that officials exaggerated the risk of the delta variant and
79% felt that they personally were not at risk for serious illness or death
article links to pdf of data

<

blockquote>How hard is it to add a column for “Vaccinated” so that one doesn’t have to derive it from the stated “Total deaths” – “Unlinked” – “Vaccinated”?

The number of cases or deaths in the fully vaccinated is in the “≥14 days post dose 2” column. The total number with some vaccination protection is the sum of that column with the “<21 days post dose 1” and “≥21 days post dose 1” columns.

For deaths, that number is 1 + 10 + 26 = 37.

It can also be calculated as “Total” – “Unlinked” – “Unvaccinated”.

For deaths, that number is 73 – 2 – 34 = 37.

How is that in any way difficult? Why should they tailor their data presentation for your purposes rather than their own?

I’ve worked out how you got the number of cases in the vaccinated as 10195. That’s from “Cases with specimen date in past 28 days” – “Unlinked” – “Unvaccinated”, and it’s the wrong way to do the calculation, since:

“≥14 days post dose 2” column + “<21 days post dose 1” + “≥21 days post dose 1”

“Total” – “Unlinked” – “Unvaccinated”

How is that in any way difficult? Why should they tailor their data presentation for your purposes rather than their own? said prl

Of course. Alties need to bend and twist data and select out bits and pieces rather than looking at the whole picture.

Over the past year or so, I’ve looked daily at official data, graphs, maps and charts about Covid illness and vaccination globally. Alties act as if these figures are not transparent and easily available to anyone who can type them into a search. They are.

English speakers can find dashboards and other collections for US/ UK/ Canada/ AUS very easily. I’ve also found great resources in other languages which I can read reasonably well.

Guess what? The situation has improved following the advent of widespread vaccination.
There’s no way you can argue with that fact without distorting information or being generally dishonest.
Some of the alties I read will say anything to scare people away from vaccination:’ in two years, the vaccinated will die!’ ( Adams) or have serious symptoms ( Null) They speak about officials being dishonest ( Mercola, RFKjr, Bigtree)
They tell followers to mistrust MSM and accept their figures instead as if the whole world were corrupt and in on the fix EXCEPT FOR THEM!. .
.

There are literally dozens of peer-reviewed research reports showing a positive effect for ivermectin, with perhaps only 1 or 2 showing no effect

Your search criteria yield 205 results. A quick skim of the first page of results easily turns up (at least) two negative results. I have better things to do than the homework that you should have done yourself, so I’m going to just leave it at “pathetic, wishful fail” on your part.

A brief look at initial entries on the two following pages of search results turns up even more negative ivermectin papers, one of which warns about toxicity of the drug and the dangers of off-label use, although ivermectin is elsewhere being touted as an “incredibly safe” drug.

It doesn’t help Mr. Clark’s cause that the July 6th, 2021 paper in Infection which leads the search results concluded that “Convalescent plasma, azithromycin, ivermectin or vitamin D3 should not be used in COVID-19 routine care.”

At least Clark didn’t declare that the 205 search results show that the NIH supports ivermectin use against Covid-19.*

*I keep running into people who believe that when a paper is indexed on PubMed, that means the NIH endorses its findings.

I keep running into people who believe that when a paper is indexed on PubMed, that means the NIH endorses its findings.

NPR pulled that one in the past couple of days; I can’t remember whether it was Morning Edition or All Things Considered. Should’ve written it down, but my life is already enshrined too much in Post-it notes.

JNJ was just ordered to pay damages of $28 BILLION for intentionally lying about the addictive properties of their opioids. How can anyone trust “science” ? You are going to trust a rapid vaccine from a company that doesn’t care who it kills or injures? You are an idiot.

So a bunch of profiteering scumbags who see dollar signs by addicting patients to their product necessitating constant future purchases thereof are the same as a vaccine development program who only expect anyone to get two shots. Got it.

Actually science tells that opioids are addictive. You do not science for that, of course. J& J and others recklessly marketed them, which is another thing.

Want to respond to Orac? Here's your chance. Leave a reply! Just make sure that you've read the Comment Policy (link located in the main menu in the upper right hand corner of the page) first if you're new here!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.