There are times when I feel as though I’m in some sort of endless loop, in which certain things keep happening and certain people keep popping up again and again. I’m going through just such a time now with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., or RFK Jr., as he’s most commonly called. Although he has repeatedly claimed to be “fiercely pro-vaccine,” in reality his activities over the last 16 years have definitively shown him to be fiercely antivaccine. The reason is that RFK Jr. has been popping up in the news lately and has a best selling conspiracy-mongering book about Anthony Fauci out that he’s promoting, as are his fellow antivaxxers, like Del Bigtree:
Unfortunately, this book is currently #1 on the Amazon.com charts, as this screenshot from this morning shows:
Sadly for the state of public health in the US and Europe, RFK Jr. is very difficult to ignore these days. Although he’s long been prominent in the antivaccine movement dating back at least 17 years, he had (mostly) disappeared from the public view, with a few exceptions. Perhaps the most hilarious one of these was when he teamed up with Robert De Niro (who is antivax as hell) to do a cringeworthy Jock Doubleday-like “challenge” to vaccine advocates. More recently, less than a year before the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in the US, RFK Jr. was in the news when his own family called him out publicly for his antivaccine grift and conspiracy mongering. Now he has a best selling conspiracy book and multiple news outlets are writing about him, for example the Associate Press’ Michelle Smith in How a Kennedy built an antivaccine juggernaut amid COVID-19. (Full disclosure: Someone with whom you might be familiar was quoted in this news story.) Meanwhile, he’s been appearing elsewhere, such as on what was characterized as a “very weird interview” with Tarpley Hitt at Gawker. Because I’ve been following RFK Jr.’s antivaccine trajectory closely since 2005, I thought it would be worth a look back to see how he’s “evolved” and “changed.” Spoiler alert: The answer is: Not much. He’s still using the same techniques he’s been using for 16 years, only turned up to 11.
RFK Jr. then and now
Before I delve into the newer stuff about RFK Jr., I can’t help but reminisce, all to briefly relate an answer to the question that Amber Ruffin asks in a regular segment: How did we get here? Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I will mention that the very first blog post that I wrote that ever went viral was about RFK Jr.’s antivax conspiracy mongering, way back in 2005, a year that now seems like ancient history to me. That year, RFK Jr. published his conspiracyfest article Deadly Immunity simultaneously in Salon.com and Rolling Stone (to the eternal shame of both publications, a shame I will never stop reminding them of as long as I blog and have a social media presence). His article popularized the Simpsonwood conspiracy theory, which posited that in 2000 the CDC met in an Atlanta suburb to “cover up” the evidence that the mercury-containing preservative thimerosal was the cause of the “autism epidemic.” It was nonsense, of course, based on a misrepresentation of how in epidemiological studies seemingly “positive” associations disappear when confounders are properly taken into account. It was also, as I have pointed out, the first variant of the central conspiracy theory of the antivaccine movement that I had ever encountered.
From there, it was off to the races, with RFK Jr. ultimately forming his antivaccine organization World Mercury Project, which was ultimately renamed Children’s Health Defense after it had become very clear nearly two decades after thimerosal was removed from vaccines that autism rates were not falling (quite the contrary, in fact), thus showing no association between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism (not that RFK Jr. ever admitted that he was wrong). Along the way, his claims to be “fiercely pro-vaccine” notwithstanding, RFK Jr. demonstrated himself to be “fiercely antivaccine,” whether he was likening vaccination to the Holocaust, trying to persuade Samoan officials that the MMR vaccine was dangerous (in the middle of a deadly measles outbreak!), claiming that today’s generation of children is the “sickest generation” (due to vaccines, of course!), or toadying up to President-Elect Donald Trump during the transition period to be chair of a “vaccine safety commission.” Indeed, last year his own family called him out for his antivaccine activism, while, predictably, RFK Jr. has, as so many antivaxxers have done, gone all-in on COVID-19 pseudoscience and conspiracy theories and become antimask, “anti-lockdown,” and pro-quack treatments.
RFK Jr. was most definitely never “fiercely pro-vaccine.” Rather, he has been (and continues to be) antivaccine to the core, with the added crankery in the age of COVID-19 of now being an antimask, anti-“lockdown” COVID-19 minimizer/denier. Amusingly, though, RFK Jr. really, really, really hates being called antivaccine—and still does.
And now, to 2021 as it nears its close, from the AP:
While many nonprofits and businesses have struggled during the pandemic, Kennedy’s anti-vaccine group has thrived. An investigation by The Associated Press finds that Children’s Health Defense has raked in funding and followers as Kennedy used his star power as a member of one of America’s most famous families to open doors, raise money and lend his group credibility. Filings with charity regulators show revenue more than doubled in 2020, to $6.8 million.
Since the pandemic started, Children’s Health Defense has expanded the reach of its newsletter, which uses slanted information, cherry-picked facts and conspiracy theories to spread distrust of the COVID-19 vaccines. The group has also launched an internet TV channel and started a movie studio. CHD has global ambitions. In addition to opening new U.S. branches, it now boasts outposts in Canada, Europe and, most recently, Australia. It’s translating articles into French, German, Italian and Spanish, and it’s on a hiring spree.
As I like to say, it’s about the ideology and conspiracy theories, but it’s also almost always also about the grift, and few COVID-19 conspiracy and antivax grifters have been as successful during the pandemic as RFK Jr. (Possible exceptions include Joe Mercola and Mike Adams.) Since the pandemic, RFK Jr.’s website Children’s Health Defense has gone from 150,000 visits/month to a peak of 4.7 million visits/month, an incredible growth rate.
Let’s look at RFK Jr. then and now (or, more properly, now and then). First, RFK Jr. now:
Dr. Richard Allen Williams, a cardiologist, professor of medicine at UCLA and founder of the Minority Health Institute, said Kennedy is leading “a propaganda movement,” and “absolutely a racist operation” that is particularly dangerous to the Black community.
“He’s really the ringleader of the misinformation campaign,” said Williams, who has written several books about race and medicine. “So many people, even those in scientific circles, don’t realize what Kennedy is doing.”
And RFK Jr. “then” shows that this is nothing new at all. RFK Jr. has long been targeting Black communities and other communities of color to spread his antivaccine message. For example, during the “resistance” to California law SB 277 in 2015, RFK Jr. cozied up to the Nation of Islam, appearing with Minister Tony Muhammad as a number of events and demonstrations and sometimes even having the Fruit of Islam (the Nation of Islam’s security wing) providing personal security for him during these events.
Not long after that, RFK Jr. showed up in Harlem. While it’s true that Harlem had gentrified considerably by then and there was a distinct—shall we say?—paucity of melanin in his audience, he was very clearly trying to appeal to Blacks and Hispanics, particularly given the role he provided a prominent Black antivaxxer who had been writing antivaccine books since the 1990s. Amusingly, RFK Jr. was kicked out of the space when the event, as antivaccine events almost always do, went way, way over the time for which the venue had been reserved. Naturally, he turned it into a persecution conspiracy theory.
Perhaps the most horrific example of RFK Jr.’s outreach to people of color came right before the pandemic hit, when he and other antivaccine groups actively spread misinformation in Samoa during the midst of a deadly measles outbreak that had killed over 60 children at the time. He even wrote a letter to the Prime Minister of Samoa that was full of antivax misinformation and tried to blame the deaths on the measles vaccine, rather than the disease. (Sound familiar? Let’s just say that blaming the vaccines instead of the disease for deaths is not a new thing for RFK Jr. and other antivaxxers.) Unfortunately, because of the cachet that the Kennedy name still holds, RFK Jr. often sees doors open for him that would normally slam shut in the face of anyone not from the Kennedy clan. As the AP article points out, he’s still doing it, using the Kennedy name to fundraise to support Children’s Health Defense and his antivaccine propaganda.
Today, RFK Jr. is still targeting minorities with his antivaccine misinformation, having released a movie this year designed explicitly to link antivaccine claims for vaccine harm to racism in medical history, in particular the Tuskegee syphilis experiment:
Children’s Health Defense’s new movie studio released a film earlier this year, called “Medical Racism.” Doctors and public health advocates said it was aimed at spreading misinformation and fear of vaccines within the Black community, which has been disproportionately hit by coronavirus.
The movie brings up racist abuses in medicine, such as the Tuskegee experiment, when hundreds of Black men in Alabama with syphilis were left untreated, to question whether the vaccine can be trusted or is necessary. Examples of racist medical practices have contributed to distrust and hesitation about vaccines among some members of the Black community.
Williams, of the Minority Health Institute, pointed out that in the Tuskegee study, people were denied medication to treat a disease. In the case of the COVID-19 vaccine, medication is available – but anti-vaccine activists are trying to persuade people not to take it. He said the film is “totally slanted.”
“It is not only harmful, but it is deadly,” he said.
The article also mentions how RFK Jr. also crafts his messages to appeal to women, in particular mothers. This, too, has long been part of his appeal. Way back in 2007, I wrote about one message that RFK Jr. was promoting, namely that the critics of antivaxxers who pointed out the pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, and bad science behind the claims that mercury in vaccines caused autism were misogynists who hate mothers.
Here’s a taste of RFK Jr. referring to combatting antivax pseudoscience as an “attack on mothers“:
The poisonous public attacks on Katie Wright this week–for revealing that her autistic son Christian (grandson of NBC Chair Bob Wright), has recovered significant function after chelation treatments to remove mercury — surprised many observers unfamiliar with the acrimonious debate over the mercury-based vaccine preservative Thimerosal. But the patronizing attacks on the mothers of autistic children who have organized to oppose this brain-killing poison is one of the most persistent tactics employed by those defending Thimerosal against the barrage of scientific evidence linking it to the epidemic of pediatric neurological disorders, including autism. Mothers of autistics are routinely dismissed as irrational, hysterical, or as a newspaper editor told me last week, “desperate to find the reason for their children’s illnesses,” and therefore, overwrought and disconnected.
But my experience with these women is inconsistent with those patronizing assessments. Over the past two years I’ve met or communicated with several hundred of these women. Instead of a desperate mob of irrational hysterics, I’ve found the anti-Thimerosal activists for the most part to be calm, grounded and extraordinarily patient. As a group, they are highly educated. Many of them are doctors, nurses, schoolteachers, pharmacists, psychologists, Ph.D.s and other professionals. Many of them approached the link skeptically and only through dispassionate and diligent investigation became convinced that Thimerosal-laced vaccines destroyed their children’s brains. As a group they have sat through hundreds of meetings and scientific conferences, and studied research papers and medical tests. They have networked with each other at meetings and on the Web. Along the way they have stoically endured the abuse routinely heaped upon them by the vaccine industry and public health authorities and casual dismissal by reporters and editors too lazy to do their jobs.
As I pointed out at the time, as much as I might sympathize with how difficult it is for parents to deal with severely autistic children, as much as I might admire their fortitude, such sympathy has never translated into tolerance when they try to weaponize that sympathy to advocate pseudoscience. Nor should it. Calmness and a dispassionate demeanor do not mean that a person didn’t come to completely incorrect conclusions about the origins of her child’s autism. He’s now doing exactly the same thing here, but adding to that a more general appeal that portrays antivaccine believers in general in a similar light, as a persecuted group who are the only ones who see the “real truth.”
RFK Jr. vs. journalists
Then, of course, there’s RFK Jr.’s rather odd history when he gives interviews to legitimate journalists. For example, he recently gave a very strange interview to Gawker writer Tarpley Hitt. I must admit, Hitt was right. The interview was very weird indeed. I also must admit that I approved of the editorial decision to insert editor’s notes debunking RFK Jr.’s false claims in his interview, although they screwed up in not debunking RFK Jr.’s claim that “none of the 72 mandated vaccine doses have ever been subject to pre-clinical, placebo-controlled trials,” which is a straight up lie (vaccine advocates regularly trot out example after example of just such studies when antivaxxers make this claim). I suspect that RFK Jr. know’s it’s false, making him a lying liar.
I’ll give you a little flavor of the interview:
So I read the entirety of the PDF that I was sent, but I got the sense that it was not the entire book — partly it’s that the file is titled “Introduction and Chapter One.” But that anecdote, for example, does not appear in the text that I have, which is about 120 pages long.
The book is 500 pages. Okay, so you didn’t read the book.
I read what was sent to me, but I have not been given the entire text.
All right. I’m happy. If you want to reschedule this, I’m happy to send you the book. I can messenger it over to you. Where are you?
I’m in Connecticut at the moment.
I can messenger it to you.
Well, let’s have a conversation based on this first section. So with this introductory chapter — where Fauci is sort of a background figure, not as central as I imagine he might be in later parts — his financial situation and potential conflicts of interest figure somewhat prominently. I’d love to spend a little time breaking that down. You mentioned that he has this annual salary of around $420,000 a year. In reporting the book, did you uncover other revenue streams that he took home over the past year?
Yeah. His salary is $434,000. He also has other avenues.. Within his agency — by their own rules, which are not regulations, they’re just adopted guidance, with no public oversight — each individual in the agency is allowed to keep $150,000 a year in royalties for every product they work on.
See what I mean? RFK Jr. seemed rather peeved that Hitt didn’t buy a copy of his book to read, rather than just reading the excerpt provided by his office. Normally, if you want a reporter to read your book, you send her a free copy, which, in the age of ebooks and PDF files, costs close to nothing. As for the part about Fauci’s salary, for someone who has run an NIH institute for 40 years, Fauci’s salary is actually not a lot compared to what he could make in the private sector, and federal law and regulations are quite explicit about outside income and the declaration of financial conflicts. Moreover, the information is almost all public. I was especially amused by his attacks on Fauci over salary later in the interview, when RFK Jr. bemoaned how he was being “censored” and how much less money he makes now than he did in the past!
See what I mean, as RFK goes off on a tangent, leading to more questions:
And we don’t make money. I mean, people ask me if I am making money. This has been a money-losing enterprise for me. I’ve lost probably 80 percent of my income.
Really? Like how much?
Well, I was doing 60 paid speeches a year, for 30 years, roughly on average. Now, I get none. And those were high-paid speeches.
How much does a speech cost?
Oh, generally a minimum for me was about $25,000. And they all disappeared, and there’s many business deals and my salary sources have also disappeared. I lost 80 percent of my income. Nobody’s making money on this and particularly not me.
I mean, your compensation on the 990 is $255,000. Seems like a lot.
Well, you know, when I was running Riverkeeper, I was making $400,000. Waterkeeper also — I was making $400,000. And our salaries are commensurate — if you look at our rating under Charity Navigator, we have, I think, a hundred-pointrating. Ours are exactly in line or below the industry standard. Typically, anyone who runs an organization like this would receive a salary of that size. I know relatives who run RFK Memorial Fund, who run Special Olympics, who run United Way. I have first cousins at all of those places, and I can tell you I know my salary is commensurate with all of theirs. We do a search of what organizations of our size — you can look up what organizations of our size typically pay — and my salary definitely is not a high salary in that regard. It’s not out of line. It’s pretty typical.
So what you’re doing, in other words, you’re doing yet another exposé by the mainstream press of us rather than an exposé of the pharmaceutical industry. What’s your name again?
RFK Jr.’s arrogance is certainly still there. Given how wealthy RFK Jr. is, though, his whining about how much less money he makes now is rather pointless. He could easily take zero salary and be just fine for the rest of his life. Still, I’m amused at how he bragged about making $25,000 a speech back in the day, even as I find it hard to believe that he can’t make at least $10,000 a speech for big antivax confabs if he wanted to.
Then there’s his victimhood fetish. Poor, poor, pitiful RFK Jr.! He’s sacrificing so much for the children, and some journalist whose name he didn’t know and can’t remember is “persecuting” him with an “exposé” of his organization.
In any event, do you see what Hitt meant when she described this interview as “weird”? It reminds me of 2013, when two other journalists, Keith Kloor and Laura Helmuth, got a taste of the strangeness that is RFK Jr. giving an interview. No, seriously, here’s Kloor’s account of his conversation with RFK Jr., and here’s Helmuth’s account. If you read them both, you’ll find a lot of similarities. In particular, RFK Jr. still liked Nazi and Holocaust analogies for vaccines and vaccine mandates. He still does, as you will see.
The “vaccine Holocaust”?
I’ve long written about how RFK Jr. really likes his Holocaust analogies with respect to vaccines, which is why this part of Helmuth’s 2013 article amused me:
Slate doesn’t give equal time to creationists, and given the overwhelming evidence, we would never publish a story claiming that vaccines cause autism. But it’s fascinating, in a horrified head-shaking sort of way, to hear how anti-vaxxers think. I requested a transcript or video of Kennedy’s speech to the 2013 AutismOne/Generation Rescue Conference, but neither the conference hosts nor Kennedy’s office provided them. I can tell you what he said to me instead.
I wrote about that talk at the time, because the editor of the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism (AoA), Dan Olmsted, had written a glowing review of it entitled RFK Jr., Nazi Death Camps and the Battle For Our Future. The link to the article is no longer there, but I did quote from it extensively, asking antivaccinationists if they could please knock it off with the autism-Holocaust analogies, already. Amusingly, sometime soon after, Olmsted’s article disappeared from AoA, and the site’s file apparently was apparently modified so that the almighty Wayback Machine at Archive.org could no longer keep the article archived after it had been deleted.
Fortunately, I kept some receipts, although I’ve long wished that I had saved the entire text and some screenshots:
Each of us will have our highlights from last weekend’s extraordinary Autism One gathering in Chicago, but for me it was Bobby Kennedy Jr. saying, “To my mind this is like the Nazi death camps.”
“This” is the imprisonment of so many of our children in the grip of autism. Talk about cutting through the neurodiverse claptrap! When Bobby Kennedy says something, it gives “cover,” in a sense, for others to use the same kind of language and frame the debate in the same kind of way. (Language that reminds me of David Kirby’s phrase, “the shuttered hell” of autism, in Evidence of Harm.)
Those who can advocate for themselves should do so. Move right along, please. Those who cannot have advocates like their parents and RFK Jr. who are sick of mincing words.
Nice! To RFK Jr., autism was like being imprisoned in a Nazi death camp! There was also this familiar-sounding trope:
The enablers may not belong in Nuremburg, but they do belong in jail, Bobby said. “I would do a lot to see Paul Offit and all these good people behind bars,” he said, after listing Offit’s litany of lies and profit. Just to make sure people got the point, he returned to it in his speech. “Is it hyperbole to say they should be in jail? They should be in jail and the key should be thrown away.”
As I have pointed out before, the invocation of the Nuremberg Trials and the Nuremberg Code, as you have so frequently seen since the pandemic hit, is nothing new. RFK Jr. and Dan Olmsted were doing it in 2013 and before, and antivaxxers continue the ugly tradition, which has unfortunately been as turbocharged by the pandemic as the antivaccine movement has.
There is a difference, though, between RFK Jr. then and now, at least with respect to Holocaust and Nazi analogies. Then, RFK Jr. clearly still had at least a little bit of a sense of shame over his use of such massively inappropriate and overblown analogies, to the point that (I strongly suspect) it was he who told Olmsted to take down that article. At the very least, he viewed such language as detrimental to his cause when seen by those not in the antivaccine cult. Indeed, as we have seen, he later refused to provide a transcript of his speech at the 2013 Autism One conference to Laura Helmuth, almost certainly because he had indeed compared autism’s effects on children and their parents to being imprisoned in a Nazi camp, as Olmsted had related in a place where he shouldn’t have. To this very day, I have been unable to find a full transcript of his speech, other than the description that I had originally quoted when I wrote my article about Olmsted’s excited praise of it. In fact, after “(oops) he did it again” in 2015, RFK Jr. actually apologized having used another Holocaust analogy about vaccines, saying:
“I want to apologize to all whom I offended by my use of the word ‘holocaust’ to describe the autism epidemic,” said Kennedy, the son of former U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy.
“I employed the term during an impromptu speech as I struggled to find an expression to convey the catastrophic tragedy of autism, which has now destroyed the lives of over 20 million children and shattered their families.
“I am acutely aware of the profound power attached to that word, and I will find other terms to describe the autism crisis in the future.”
Here’s what RFK Jr. had said:
But some parents fear information about the hazards of vaccines has been suppressed, largely because of what they call the pharmaceutical industry’s influence over health officials. Many parents believe their children have been damaged by vaccines. When Kennedy asked the crowd of a few hundred viewers how many parents had a child injured by vaccines, numerous hands went up.
“They get the shot, that night they have a fever of a hundred and three, they go to sleep, and three months later their brain is gone,” Kennedy said. “This is a holocaust, what this is doing to our country.”
Nice. I can’t help but note the self-own here. RFK Jr. claimed that he had struggled to find “an expression to convey the catastrophic tragedy of autism, which has now destroyed the lives of over 20 million children and shattered their families” and, in his struggle, had invoked the Holocaust as an appropriate comparison to autism, which, of course, he believes to be caused by vaccines. That tells you all you need to know right there about RFK Jr.’s true views about autism (that it’s a tragedy akin to the Holocaust) and vaccines (that mandating them is a tragedy akin to the Holocaust too)(. The only reason he apologized is because of all the criticism he got for having used that analogy, not because he didn’t believe what he said in his speech.
Fast forward to RFK Jr. now. In Hitt’s interview, right after the part in which he had hectored her about being an “apologist for the pharmaceutical industry,” Hitt, unfazed, asked RFK Jr:
So you have a section in the book called “Final Solution: Vaccines or Bust.”
Excuse me?
You have a section — a sub header — in the book called “Final Solution: Vaccines or Bust.”
Yeah.
That’s a pretty pointed choice of words. Did you mean to invoke the Holocaust?
It says what it says.
Can you elaborate?
It says what it says.
Right, but that’s a very potent phrase, “final solution,” in that it was used to mean eradicating the Jews.
I don’t think the vaccines have anything to do with eradicating the Jews.
Here’s the difference between RFK Jr. then and RFK Jr. now. RFK Jr. then did have a penchant for the flagrant misuse of Holocaust and Nazi analogies about vaccines, but he almost always only used those analogies on the down-low, when he was among his adoring antivax fans in what I like to refer to as antivax “safe spaces.” Then, RFK Jr. was still actually embarrassed enough to shut down an article by an overenthusiastic fan like Dan Olmsted that quoted his use of such analogies, seeming to know that such analogies were a form of Holocaust denial—or, at the very least, offensive to so many people not in his antivax cult. Then, RFK Jr. would even apologize if he slipped up and inadvertently said the quiet part out loud in a public venue where those not in the antivaccine cult could overhear his true beliefs. In contrast to then, now RFK Jr. not only uses analogies about the Holocaust to describe vaccines and vaccine mandates, but he no longer hides or makes even a pretense of apologizing for it. He just disingenuously tries to deny that using the term “final solution” has anything to do with a Holocaust analogy, even as he now openly consorts with fascists who share his hatred of “lockdowns,” masks, and vaccines.
I like to say that in the age of COVID-19, there is nothing truly new under the sun with respect to the antivaccine movement. Comparing RFK Jr. then to RFK Jr. now demonstrates that this statement is true and that he remains now, as then, fiercely antivaccine. There is one modifier, though. The pandemic has led antivaxxers like RFK Jr. to turn their antivax conspiracy mongering up to 11. Even that is probably no real change in him. It’s just that times have changed to the point where he now feels comfortable revealing his true self and his real beliefs about vaccines.
851 replies on “RFK Jr. then vs. RFK Jr. now: Still fiercely antivaccine after all these years”
MJD says,
Orac has battled most who support RFK, Jr.’s stance on vaccines.
Book reviews:
“Dr. Joseph Goebbels wrote that ‘A lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth.’ Tragically for humanity, there are many, many untruths emanating from Fauci and his minions. RFK Jr exposes the decades of lies.”
—Luc Montagnier, Nobel laureate
“Bobby Kennedy is one of the bravest and most uncompromisingly honest people I’ve ever met. Someday he’ll get credit for it. In the meantime, read this book.”
—Tucker Carlson
“As a trial lawyer, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has taken on the world’s most powerful corporations and held them accountable for harming people and the environment. Those companies denied any wrongdoing—but time and again, judges and juries were persuaded that Kennedy’s position was the right one. Kennedy’s information should always be considered, and agree or disagree, we all learn from listening.”
—Tony Robbins, New York Times bestselling author
“Bobby Kennedy and I famously disagree about many aspects of the current debates surrounding Covid and vaccines. We also disagree about Dr Fauci. But I always learn when I read or hear Bobby’s take. So read this book and challenge its conclusions.”
—Alan Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School; author of The Case for Vaccine Mandates
“If you have any interest in doing a deep dive into the more than 100-year history of what led up to the COVID-19 pandemic, then The Real Anthony Fauci is an absolute must-read. In addition to exposing Fauci, the book reveals the complex web of connections between Gates and Big Pharma and many of the most important players that were responsible for seeking to implement global tyranny and profit enormously from the propaganda behind the COVID injections, masks, and lockdowns.”
—Dr. Joseph Mercola, founder of Mercola.com
“Bobby Kennedy’s book on The Real Anthony Fauci speaks truth in times when health care becomes health harm, untruth rules through anti-science and fake news.”
—Dr. Vandana Shiva, director of Navdanya and author of Oneness vs. the 1%
“I thought I understood what was going on from an insider POV. But this is mind-blowing. Anthony Fauci is playing precisely the strategy that he developed and tested during the HIV days. Bobby is on fire in this manuscript. The depth of information and facts, all carefully cited, is mind-blowing. It is a must-read. I think it will really help clarify what has been going down here. Thanks to the consistently dysfunctional COVID-19 response by Fauci and USG/HHS (US Government Health and Human Services Department), we have all become familiar with the terms “regulatory capture” and “Noble Lie.” The personal opinion and bias of Dr. Fauci has been repeatedly substituted for evidence-based medicine, and we are all living with the consequences. But beyond this mundane incompetence, what this book clearly documents are the deeper forces and systemic, pervasive governmental corruption, which have led us to this point. Not since the reign of former FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, have we seen such empire building by a corrupt, longstanding federal employee who is long past retirement age. Dr. Fauci’s apparent need to bolster a fragile ego has led to the almost complete systemic corruption of not only US HHS, but the entire world public health system. The consequences will be lasting damage to the reputation of the United States of America, US FDA, and US CDC as honest, independent guardians of public health, which has been carefully nurtured over many decades. The world is now able to clearly see that the US HHS has been captured and compromised by commercial interests. One unintended consequence of allowing and enabling this tragedy will be further erosion in domestic trust in the Public Health System, and in particular, in the entire vaccine enterprise. Global impacts are likely to include accelerating loss of trust in US and western pharmaceutical companies and regulators, and more rapid rise of Asian, Indian, and Middle Eastern pharmaceutical competitors.”
—Robert W. Malone, MD, virologist, immunologist, molecular biologist
“Standing as a pivotal work for the history of science and medicine, this book unveils the astonishing, twisted truth about a man (Fauci) and a corrupt institution (NIH) that have betrayed humanity at every turn in order to achieve profits and power. If the American people knew the truth that’s documented here, they would be marching by the millions, demanding criminal prosecutions of all those who are complicit in these outrageous betrayals of humanity. RFK Jr’s book closes the loop on one of the most disastrous and truly evil schemes in the history of medicine and science. If humanity does not now demand investigations and prosecutions across this vast landscape of science fraud and pathological ‘authority,’ we are truly beyond hope.”
—Mike Adams, a.k.a. the “Health Ranger,” founder of NaturalNews.com
“If you’ve ever wondered why so many good scientists and doctors have been silenced for discoveries that don’t fit the mainstream Big Pharma narrative, look no further than Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s tour de force exposé of Anthony Fauci. This book reads like a John Grisham legal thriller. Except that it is not fiction. Read it with your eyes wide open. It’s time the world woke up to the truth.”
—Christiane Northrup, MD, former assistant clinical professor of Ob/Gyn, University of Vermont College of Medicine; New York Times bestselling author of Women’s Bodies, Women’s Wisdom
“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. did a great job. I don’t agree with everything, but his case is well laid out and copiously documented. The most disturbing things are the unbelievable financial entanglements, the shoddy treatment of patients in clinical trials, and the culture of intimidation. Overall a very good book and a call to overhaul the CDC/NIH.”
—Dr. Thomas B. Hakes
“To give great responsibility and power to those with no accountability is a recipe for disaster.”
—K Paul Stoller, MD, FACHM, Hyperbaric & Integrative Medicine
“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
—Mahin Khatami, PhD
“Kennedy’s book proves beyond a shadow of doubt what many Americans have come to learn about Fauci: that he has stifled open debate to the point of utter stagnation of biomedical science. Fauci issues knowledge by decree. This most uninquisitive Fauci is far more concerned with being right and with making sure that the solutions adopted to problems come from his circle rather than in discovering fundamental truths, regardless of the completely externalized cost of his ‘solutions.’ The evidence shows plainly that Fauci has been wrong on matters of life and death far more than he has been right. Fauci’s resulting body count is such that he should have a statue erected with him posing and hanging his head in eternal shame. Thanks to this book, historians will mark Fauci down as the most dangerous threat to global public health in the 20th and 21st Centuries.”
—James Lyons-Weiler, biomedical research scientist
“RFK Jr.’s story of Fauci’s failure as the government’s AIDS coordinator is a highly disturbing prologue to his COVID mandate as head of NIAID. So, who is Dr. Fauci in the end? Has American medicine truly become a ‘racket,’ as corrupt as a mafia organization? Does everything in our country turn on the size of the money involved? How can we begin to solve this? The Real Anthony Fauci is a fascinating starting point. RFK Jr. has written a strong, strong book.”
—Oliver Stone, award-winning director, producer, and screenwriter
Well, there’s a fine collection of fools, knaves and grifters. Nice company Junior keeps.
As Mad Magazine would put it: The Usual Gang of Idiots
You scraped up the bottom of the scum barrel there MJD. Just the type of low-lifes I’d expect you to look to — one of your own kind.
Doucheniak, jacket blurbs aren’t “reviews.”
And you left off Randy Jackson.
Geez, Stoller lost his medical license months ago (2/21) and Kennedy puts him on the jacket?
Beggars can’t be choosers?
The quote from Stoller it’s not an actual endowment, just a general quote about power.
I love the ‘resounding’ endorsement from Dershowitz, and we all know how much that’s worth these days.
And your point with all that lot is exactly what?
As pointed out, it is a collection of well-known disinformation spreaders and charlatans.
What do want us to take from that?
@ Murmur,
The first line in my response, “Orac has battled most who support RFK, Jr.’s stance on vaccines.” In simplification, Orac’s got it covered…
The other painful thing about his discussion above – which is less emphasized – is his obvious contempt for children with autism. “Their brains are gone”? They have no brain? Really?
Someone like that is not a suitable person to guide parents of children with autism in any way, shape or form.
He has quite the combination of dishonesty and defensiveness.
Ms. Smith did a very thorough, strong job showing the background of his organization and its finances.
Antivax sentiment is always based on ableism. Always.
It seems that RFK jr is still available on social media when other anti-vaxxers are banned. An American ‘aristocrat’ has power, I suppose.
Also:
— of course, he defends poor, set-upon Katie Wright. Sceptics should read her tweets ( @ katiewr31413491) and articles where she is most definitely NOT a shrinking violet in need of protection: as a matter of fact, her histrionics at CHD, AoA and SM work powerfully against women because she provides mis-information to worried mothers/ women that keeps them from seeking reasonable care options for children/ adults. That’s not empowering women.
— I’m glad to see actual new figures on CHD’s reach and funds . I read the AP article earlier today. Does not CHD earn RFK jr more than money because it may set his law firms up for new clients about various assaults by corporations on people he highlights? A fame engine?
— I won’t pay for his book either. I did hear him speak/ rant about it for free courtesy of Gary Null: there are videos and audios – the easiest is :
progressivecommentaryhour.podbean.com 112321 a full hour’s worth
Actually, that’s an interesting speculation, that RFK Jr. is still on social media while so many antivaxxers have been banned. I had never thought that this might be due to the Kennedy name, but it might.
Funny how our society — or perhaps our species? — has evolved to provide so much reward — financial and otherwise — to people with obvious personality disorders.
Anti-vaxxers think all vaccines are bad and should never be used; pro-vaxxers think all vaccines are good and should be used, the more the better.
Gorski only thinks in terms of these two extremes, and has no interest in shades of grey or subtleties. Gorski is a propagandist for the drug industry — maybe not intentionally, but that is the result.
Extremists can be influential, but they don’t appeal to those of us who want to hear carefully thought out arguments. It’s real easy to write a long article that picks on and distorts every little thing someone said. So JFK Jr. is a racist — interesting! Let’s bring race into every single debate, no matter how irrelevant. After all, it stirs up the emotions.
I am not defending JFK Jr., or any other extreme anti-vaxxer. I am defending careful thought that considers more than one side.
There IS another side to the COVID 19 vaccine story, and it is being strenuously suppressed and censored. Maybe partly because of good intentions — wanting to decrease the likelihood of deaths among the vulnerable. But I cannot see how anyone is unaware of what a tremendous marketing opportunity this is for drug companies. If the public accepts mRNA vaccines in this crisis, then mRNA vaccines will be the thing of the future.
These vaccines have NOT been proven safe, although that is the official story that is shouted all over the news and internet. In reality, the safety of mRNA vaccines is a complicated scientific debate that cannot be solved by extremists shouting insults at each other. There are people who really know what they are talking about who are very skeptical. Of course, all of you here will call them quacks, no matter how qualified they are.
Censoring and suppressing anyone who questions the safety of mRNA vaccines is NOT the way to build trust! Just the opposite. Trying to silence them with insults won’t work. Yes, the mainstream news media is mostly dominated by genetic vaccine advocates, but there is still a very strong dissenting movement. As Gorski explains in this article, JFK Jr. is doing great. All because his name is Kennedy? I doubt it.
Well I don’t like extremists like JFK Jr., but I am glad another point of view is being heard. I am glad there is still a healthy distrust of the drug industry. It is beyond my comprehension how anyone could have complete faith in such a politically powerful industry.
And, once again, everything old is new again in the age of COVID-19. What Indie Rebel is doing here is nothing new, but rather a very old antivax trope. What do I mean?
Antivaxxers have long invoked the fallacy of the golden mean to falsely claim that they somehow occupy a more “reasonable,” less “extreme” so-called “middle ground” between “extreme antivaxxers” and “extreme provaxxers,” and that’s what the very tiresome “Indie Rebel” is doing here. Here’s the thing. In science, often the correct position is not some “middle” position between two extremes, particularly when one extreme is as antiscience and full of conspiracy theories as the antivax “extreme” is. The other trope that IR is using is the claim that “they” are somehow “silencing” antivax voices as well as the mischaracterization of science communicators as having “complete faith” in pharma or even being paid by big pharma to promote vaccines. Truly, there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to antivax tropes, as IR demonstrates.
Next you’ll say you don’t think that the half-sphere theory is a reasonable compromise between the flat Earth society and mainstream alloastronomy.
Dorit’s already in midseason form.
RFK jr. Not JFK jr. JFK jr died a long time ago. JFK jr is the subject of a completely divorced from reality conspiracy theory.
RFK jr is very much alive.
As for your statement ” pro-vaxxers think all vaccines are good and should be used, the more the better.”
Yeah no. I’ve never seen Orac or anyone else here suggest getting the BCG for fun, or the yellow fever vaccine if you’re not traveling, or the smallpox vaccine.
Maybe you aren’t aware of just how many terrible, deadly diseases have vaccine now, because which vaccines you get is still very dependent on the physical environment where you live and what pathogens you are likely to be exposed to. But if you live in the US and don’t travel outside the country then there are dozens of vaccines no one would ever suggest or offer to you.
Sure thing, Polly. I must admit that I’m mildly impressed by the depth of your craving for attention. Does the Intelligent Universe not cut the mustard? Can it not manifest calming yet exciting hands?
Many vaccines have been rejected as unsafe and are never used. And others are replaced with better options.
What people like Gorski believe in is reality, as approximated by controlled trials.
@Orac
“Here’s the thing. In science, often the correct position is not some “middle” position between two extremes, particularly when one extreme is as antiscience and full of conspiracy theories as the antivax “extreme” is.”
I said extreme anti-vaxxers are wrong. But it’s also wrong to say any vaccine promoted by the drug industry must be safe. There are good reasons for people being skeptical. Your extreme “All vaccines are always good” position is not convincing to everyone.
Except it’s not his position. It’s something you made up.
As that, it speaks to you, not him.
And now “Indie Rebel” has added a straw man argument to the list of logical fallacies being used.
Indie Rebel’s not been a slacker,
Science’s erstwhile attacker,
..The strawmen are burning,
..Firelight so alluring,
Please give Polly a cracker.
A lot of this is coming straight, unfiltered down the baloney chute from McCollough. I listened to his pathetic diatribe on Rogan in the car the other day. I really felt sorry for the man. To his “credit,” Joe tried to call him out and check some of the more extreme gems…if only marginally-successfully. Here’s my response to some of those:
1-Over 15k people have died after the vax!!!
We have to report ANY death after the vax. I saw one in there that stated the patient had died after internal decap in a car accident. The vax got that poor girl! Besides, weren’t these the same nuts I was arguing with last year about blaming deaths on covid the same way? You can’t have it both ways, folks.
2-The vax can hurt or kill people who had covid!!
BUUUUUUUULLLLLLLSHEEEEYAAAAAT. We regularly give a booster 90 days pos-covid. Thousands of times. No issues reported and we are looking. I have, personally, given probably two dozen and seen those patients months later in clinic. Nary an issue in the bunch.
3-Core antibodies from infection are much more powerful against covid than the vax!!!
maybe. I will let the more learned in infectious disease chime in.
4-This whole thing was planned! Something, something, an exercise that involved a SARS outbreak, something something RFK Jr’s BOOK!!!!!
Pathethic. Batshit-crazy nonsense. I remember a DHS exercise my old hospital took part in back in 2010 that involved a hypothetical SARS virus. Why you ask? Well…other than a swine flu thing in Mexico City, SARS was the most concerning for a respiratory pandemic to rear its ugy head around that time. It made for a good exercise.
5-Ivermectin works, HCQ works!!
Yawn.
6-There’s no outpatient treatment and anyone who tries is “Suppressed!!!!”
BULL. We have been desperate for a functional treatment that we could use a likelihood-of-hospitalization predictive score to administer. And, no-IVM and HCQ DO NOT WORK. Not before symptoms, not with symptoms, not after symptoms. Neither does remdesivir. We used steroids early on with a modicum of success.
7-MAB are way better than vaccine and we should get covid and use those!!!
I thought big pharma was evil? You know what those cost if you can get them? I’ve had two ICU patients die with monoclonals-they’re not a panacea. Isn’t this an apples-to-oranges comparison?
8-The vaccine only imparts 36% protection…no, wait-it’s 61%, no…I changed my mind; now it’s 45% protection!!!!!!!!!
Yeah. Enough said. Plus, what matters is-are you less likely to die, regardless of your baseline health, with the vaccine?
Also, if a person needs to keep stating how many studies he has published, the committees he is on, that he has “Testified under oath” OVER and OVER and OVER ad nauseum, said individual is likely FOXTROT OSCAR SIERRA. Again, pathetic.
@ Indie Rebel and some of my remarks directed to Michael J. Dochniak
So, with a claimed PhD in Cognitive Psychology and a “claimed” expertise on Evolution, including having checked every claim of evidence, now you are an expert on vaccines. Have you ever studied, even read an introductory book on immunology, microbiology, epidemiology? Ever read a book on history of some infective disease, e.g., smallpox, polio, etc. I’ve read a dozen books just on polio and probably 500 papers, similar smallpox, etc.
You write: “it’s also wrong to say any vaccine promoted by the drug industry must be safe.” And I agree; but I don’t rely on what the drug industry claims, NEVER; but do look at any studies, even ones sponsored by them, in peer-reviewed journals and then look for additional studies, papers, including on other nations’ websites. I am fluent at Swedish and, with help of dictionary, can read French and German and have their websites bookmarked.
I am just finishing reading RFK Jrs. book “The Real Anthony Fauci”. Lots of references, a minority from peer-reviewed journal articles and many from people with questionable backgrounds, e.g., promoters of belief “Sandy Hook massacre” was a hoax. I am considering writing a review of the book. Some of his claims are just plain dishonest, cherry picking early papers on specific topics, some show either intentional or a lack of understanding of the basics of science and the book is laced with hyperbole, repetition, etc.; but I’m sure you and Michael J. Dochniak will eat it up.
And RFK makes some DUMB mistake that many antivaxxers make, probably intentionally. By analogy, if I go to supermarket I can purchase potato chips, soft drinks, and candy OR fresh fruit, veggies, whole grain breads, Yoghurt, etc. Both sold for profit by producers and, in turn, by supermarkets. The first, at least in my opinion, unhealthy (of course, depends on amount); but the second group healthy. Everything is sold for a profit. Profit doesn’t say if valuable, harmful, or any combination in between. One can criticize pharmaceutical industry for obscene profits, e.g., insulin; but not insulin per se and if sold at a “reasonable profit” (Fault of our bought and paid for Congress). So, of course, no pharmaceutical company will begin producing something without hopes of making a profit and, of course, they will try to increase sales; but, again, doesn’t say whether beneficial, etc.
What you fail to understand is that all current vaccines, until Covid mRNA vaccines have been on the market for many years and have effectiveness and safety data from many sources, including other nations, etc. And there is ample data on the effectiveness and safety of the mRNA vaccines. However, few vaccines are 100% effective and given a population with a wide genetic diversity, epi-genetics, exposures to toxins, etc. impossible to have NO adverse events; but the serious adverse events that have been documented are few compared to the reduced risk of serious Covid, hospitalization, long Covid, and possibly death. I don’t live in a fantasy world of black and white. Having studied immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, and read numerous books, and articles on the history of vaccine-preventable diseases, the benefits vs risk ratio is exponential.\
I was a volunteer in the Moderna covid clinical trials; but before volunteering, I refreshed what I knew about mRNA, including PubMed, National Library of Medicine’s online database, read up on previous research on mRNA vaccines, and found dozen articles on coronavirus S-Spike protein. And I have been following reports on Covid and Covid vaccines since beginning of outbreak.
If you go to PubMed, type in “messenger RNA”, limit to 2018 and back, one gets today 422,860 papers. Not all original research; but tells you we know a hell of a lot about messenger RNA. If you then type in “messenger RNA vaccine”, again limit to 2018, you get 3,089. Quite a few papers! ! !
And I did a search on just “Moderna covid vaccine” and found 641 results, including excellent article in New England Journal of Medicine, Baden LR et al. (2021 Feb 4). Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine.
AND ONE MORE POINT. DESPITE WHAT ANTIVAXXERS BELIEVE, RISK OF LONG-TERM ADVERSE EVENTS FROM VACCINES EXTREMELY RARE, SO THREE-MONTH FOLLOW-UP EXCELLENT. I DON’T RULE OUT SOME RARE CASE OF LONG-TERM ADVERSE EVENT; BUT IF VACCINE SAVES 10S OF THOUSANDS OF LIVES AND 1 OR 2 SUFFER LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES, THAT IS, IF, VERY VERY SAD; BUT IN REAL WORLD 1 OR 2 VS 10S OF THOUSANDS IS A NO-BRAINER! ! !
As Orac explained above, no middle ground when strong science backs! ! !
If you really want to know how CDC checks vaccine safety, go to:
CDC Vaccine Safety website. Discusses numerous different programs. And an excellent article:
Shimabukuro TT et al. (2015 Aug 26). Safety monitoring in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Vaccine; 33(36): 4398-4405.
Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632204/
An excellent, actual text only 160 pages, intro to immunology:
Lauren Sompayrac (2019). How the Immune System Works (6th Edition). Wiley-Blackwell. $36.99 at amazon.com
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH writes,
“I’m sure you and Michael J. Dochniak will eat it up.”
MJD says,
Joel, how do you define “eat it up”? Seems like you’re a big bully. Geez, I’ve just published a medical paper describing the use of vaccines and hyper-allergenic skin creams to starve metastatic cancer through immune-metabolic interference.
https://wjarr.com/sites/default/files/WJARR-2021-0649.pdf
Please don’t tell me I’ve been a bad boy, Joel.
serial quack MJD says:
“I’ve just published a medical paper describing the use of vaccines and hyper-allergenic skin creams to starve metastatic cancer through immune-metabolic interference.”
From the end of his “work”
“This commentary contains a discussion of an unapproved/ investigative hyper-allergenic skin cream to promote cancer regression.”
How much did they charge you to publish this twaddle? Did you have to use a black crayon to write it or did they accept the original in blue?
@ldw56old:
“Low Article Publication fee (Just 32 USD)”
Less than I expected, really.
https://wjarr.com/content/about-journal-wjarr
Idw56old writes,
“Did you have to use a black crayon to write it or did they accept the original in blue?”
MJD says,
Great respectful insolence, keep it up. Now, show me your latest publication that supports vaccines.
@ Idw56old,
Do you publish your work with the comic book publisher IDW (a.k.a., Idw)?
https://www.idwpublishing.com/
Science denier mjd said:
“Great respectful insolence, keep it up. Now, show me your latest publication that supports vaccines.”
Sorry — statistician here, not a medical researcher. The difference is that I can understand the studies. You — well, if you read them and get past the long sentences you clearly don’t come away with any understanding. Since you’ve shown you don’t have any better feel for statistics than you do for science that’s not a surprise.
I’ve been thinking about my “twaddle” comment. I’ve decided it’s far too favorable a description of your unsupported drivel, but it is passable for public consumption.
Hyper-allergenic skin cream? Hyper?
Idw56old writes,
“I’ve decided it’s far too favorable a description of your unsupported drivel, but it is passable for public consumption.”
MJD says,
That’s fine, Idw56old. Please introduce us to some of your statistician bravery. References?
@Dorit Reiss
“Except it’s not his position. It’s something you made up.”
Orac said there is no middle ground regarding vaccines, there are only two extreme positions. That means he does not think some vaccines could possibly be harmful.
That does not mean the position that you made up.
In fact, a quick perusal of his articles would show that he does address vaccines risks. He just does it in an evidence-based manner. For example: https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2021/06/23/myocarditis-and-covid-19-vaccines/ (yes, this is early, and we learned more since).
The difference is that unlike anti-vaccine leaders, he does not make up things.
His point was that there is no middle ground between misinformation and facts, and the anti-vaccine position on vaccines is misinformation. That’s not “no vaccines have risks”. That’s, at best, a misunderstanding by you, at worst, an intentional misrepresentation of his position.
It’s pretty amusing to see Orac crying “Strawman!” when he routinely frames anti-mandate as anti-vax, and the bulk of every post consists of mocking anyone that dares to question the official narrative concerning the mRNA gene therapy products.
Orac, if you have weighed all of the risks and “benefits” for this product and have concluded that they are appropriate for YOU, you will find very few people standing in your way. As long as you support the right of every other individual to make their own decision, there’s no problem. If you advocate suppression of any evidence that amplifies the risk signal instead of open debate, you tacitly oppose informed consent. That’s a very tenuous position to defend. If you oppose censorship and mandates, I’d be hard-pressed to infer that from the insolence on display here.
@Chaos Infusion:
“support the right of every other individual to make their own decision,”
What about people too young to be vaccinated? Why do they have to support your decision to infect them?
Infectious diseases are infectious. That means that your decisions affect and impact other people in ways that they can not possibly control. It’s like drunk driving. Other people will pay the consequences of your decisions.
It is not possible for you to be unvaccinated and have no effect on the people you come into contact with.
Why do you think you have been asked to wash your hands after going to the toilet? It’s not an attempt to curb your freedoms. It’s to stop you spreading germs to everyone else after you take a dump.
Come up with a way for unvaccinated people to live through a pandemic without contributing to it. No one will care about your vaccinated status then. At least vaccinated people are doing their best to minimise the harm they cause and receive.
Correction:
The bulk of every post consists of mocking anyone that wrongly profess that mRNA vaccines are gene therapy products.
@ Indie Rebel,
Understand that Orac diminishes “vaccine safety advocate.”
Let me explain with an analogy:
A teeter totter having “provaxxer” and “antivaxxer” on the ends with a “vaccine safety advocate” in the middle is how Orac and his minions perceive forced immunity though vaccinations.
MJD says,
In this teeter totter analogy, most recognize that the “vaccine safety advocate” constantly leans towards the “antivaxxer”, lifting up the “provaxxer.”
Anti-vaccine activists are not “vaccine safety advocates”. They do not propose evidence-based ways to increase vaccine safety. They make up risks vaccines do not have and use those to cast fear on vaccines.
That does not improve vaccine safety. And it reduces overall safety by scaring people off vaccines – with misinformation.
@Dorit Reiss
“His point was that there is no middle ground between misinformation and facts, and the anti-vaccine position on vaccines is misinformation.”
So you’re saying the anti-vaxxers are always completely wrong, and there is never any value in anything they say? Nothing in JFK Jr.’s book (that Orac didn’t read) could possibly be valid or accurate?
I doubt there is anyone on the planet who is infallibly right, or infallibly wrong. That is why we need to hear more than one side of controversies.
Many people believe that vaccine safety problems are sometimes covered up, and that does not seem a terribly far-fetched idea. If we express skepticism, we should not be labeled anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, and banned from social media. But that is exactly what is happening now.
My experience is that most or all of what Robert F. Kennedy Jr. says on vaccines is misinformation or disinformation. Disinformation means taking a grain of truth and using it to deceive – so no, not 100% would be wrong, but it would generally be misleading in presentation or content.
And yes. Assuming there are vaccines problems covered up with no evidence is buying into anti-vaccine misinformation and a conspiracy theory. It sounds like wanting to believe there’s a problem with vaccines based on no evidence. That’s classic anti-vaccine.
In reality, note that actual issues with COVID-19 vaccines were openly and publicly discussed. That’s J&J blood clots and myocarditis – and allergic reaction.
So not only is there no basis to thinking that there are problems being covered up, it goes against what actually happened.
I think you are doing a nice job validating Orac’s initial point – that you are an anti-vaccine activist trying to pretend to be a moderate.
I find the ‘cover up’ idea to be a great way to get out of any discussion of the science:
– If the results are ‘pro-vaccine’, then the response is ‘cover up’
– If the results are ‘anti-vaccine’, then the response is ‘truth’, often followed up by ‘brave scientist fighting the ‘system’
Most anti-vaxxers believe that ALL vaccines are somehow either harmful or useless. Very few will accept ANY vaccine. That’s a test of anti-vax.
SBM supporters recognise that there is risk with ANY medical procedure ( indeed, with any human action) and can even put a number on it. Drug A is riskier than drug B and why.
If IR believes that there is a middle ground, let him/her describe it / its range, either with words or numbers and/ or give examples of people who support that/ those position(s).
@Dorit Reiss
Dissent from the official narrative is labelled “dangerous misinformation” and banned from social media. That alone should make everyone suspicious. But there is blind faith in official medical agencies, especially among progressive Democrats. Not that politics should have anything to do with it, but it does.
And by the way, Gorski’s accusing JFK Jr. of racism is just silly. And that’s another hammer in the toolbox of progressive Democrats — find a way to accuse your opponents of racism, even if race has nothing to do with the controversy.
You’re very silly. RFK Jr. opened the door by making that dishonest movie designed to stoke fear of vaccines among Blacks by falsely linking them to the Tuskegee experiment.???♂️
As much as I hate to admit it-there may be something to this. Twitter is a private platform, not a government entity beholden to amendment 1.
That said, I’d rather they leave these bananas, unhinged, nutty-as-squirrel-shit posts and videos of bozos behind their steering wheel or in their pathetic, home “YouTube studio” up.
My favorite yet was the piece of performance art of the nurse getting walked out by security. Hair and makeup perfect. Obvious she just got Botox for the event. No nurse anywhere outside of a derm office looks like that. No way two security guards show up unless you’re code grey or a known nut job. My guess is the latter and everyone was happy to wash their hands of her.What a joke.
Keep that stuff up do we can see just how sick, deranged, and sad these people are. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Let them continue to bare ass and place foot in mouth for all the world to see.
Why official narrative should automatically be wrong ? Like COVID kills people, vaccines are not gene therapy, vaccines are tested, etc. These lies andanger public health.
There is a middle ground. Not everyone who is skeptical of the Covid vaccine is an antivaxxer. This is not a straw man argument based on logical fallacies. There are many reasons some people do not fully trust the government, media, or pharmaceutical companies. But if you bring up other issues not directly related to the respective post, Orac will immediately denounce it as “whataboutism” and his devoted supporters will arrogantly make assumptions about you or just label you as another ignorant antivaxxer.
There may be people skeptical of COVID-19 vaccines that are not anti-vaccine.
But the people commenting here do not seem of that variety. And much of the skepticism seems to be driven by points – most of them untrue – fed to the public by anti-vaccine activists. Like the misuse of VAERs reports.
There are certainly groups with good reasons to mistrust government – but they don’t seem to be the ones commenting here or the ones making claims like the one above.
Dorit is absolutely right. Some individuals have doubts and reservations about vaccines in general but this does not make them anti vaccine.
One group who might attract a certain amount of empathy and understanding in this regard would surely be those who have experienced a vaccine induced injury either personally or in a member of their family.
Few if any give much thought to the legacy created for people who are vaccine injured in displaying fear or hesitancy in respect of vaccines thereafter. That does not mean they are anti-vaccine, merely very fearful and distrusting of something they once readily accepted without question.
The problem with these groups is the large number of people who blame vaccines for things they don’t cause – like parents of children with autism who blame vaccines or parents who lost children to SIDS, or more recently, the people who blame what looks like conversion disorder on COVID-19 vaccines.
These are much more numerous than (few) people who have actually and really been harmed from vaccines, and they’re tricky. We can sympathize with the suffering, for example, of parents struggling to navigate the special needs structure in the U.S. (which is sub-optimal) – but accepting those claims harms others.
In fact, these groups have been a big presence in the anti-vaccine movement, so we certainly have thought about and grappled with dealing with them.
The “problem” is that people often conflate the issue by amalgamating both those merely “blaming” vaccines for conditions currently with no acknowledged link with those who have proven cases of vaccine injury……..two entirely different groups!
Surely the latter are deserving of understanding as to vaccine hesitancy irrespective of how large an impact those blaming vaccines have on the anti-vaccine movement and how tricky they are!
Recognising and empathising with the “few” who “have actually and really been harmed from vaccines” and are subsequently vaccine hesitant, should not be avoided because accepting claims from groups “blaming” vaccines for injuries, harms others.
Like I say two very different groups.
Wendy, I purpose that the people most guilty of amalgamating the ‘two entirely different groups’ are those you characterize ‘merely “blaming” vaccines for conditions currently with no acknowledged link’. I don’t think that they see themselves the same way you do. People want someone (else) to blame, regardless of any proof.
Proven cases of vaccine injury have been acknowledged, both by the courts and by science (sometimes even when the ink was very weak). I am sure that they would be treated even better if the first group did not lack upon every case (regardless of the actual link) as a battle cry.
I can understand a case of ‘once bitten, twice shy’. But this group is insignificant besides the larger group crying wolf…
David, those with proven vaccine induced injuries are powerless to either address or remedy the conduct of others and so it is insensitive to suggest that they would be “treated even better” were it not for their conduct.
The fact that some unscrupulous individuals attach themselves to acknowledged cases of vaccine injury or use them as material for a battle cry is not the fault of those suffering from vaccine induced injuries. Poor conduct on the part of some individuals should not dictate the way in which vaccine injured persons are regarded and treated by the rest of society.
I’m hoping that in describing those affected by “the once, bitten twice shy” scenario (in proven cases of vaccine injury) as “insignificant besides the larger group crying wolf” you are referring to the numbers involved.
@Wendy
Yes, I was referring to the difference in numbers.
And yes, I do see the problem we have. Is it realy ‘insensitive’ to point out that the treatment of vaccine injured is hurt by Kennedy and his friends? That they are being used?
How do you purpose that we separate the ‘unscrupulous individuals’, from those ‘powerless’ victims of the anti-vax ecosystem? What solution do you see?
You make a fair point about the media. They have a lot of problems. It’s hard to know who has actually researched and confirmed stories anymore. Bias is sometimes on display.
I, for one, wish Fauci would be quiet. He’s radioactive. Regardless of why, he is. He will never convince another soul beyond those he has already.
Shameless plug for primary care but I feel like that is the broken link here. Most of my hesitant patients just want questions answered by someone they trust. When they know I am the guy who saved their life in the hospital once and whom they now see in clinic, they know I would never recommend anything I even suspected to be dangerous. NEVER. That is my oath.
And this excuse for a book tries to amplify each and every one of them. (I’ve just hit the 5G part. Before this, I would have said that any assertion of fact without a footnote should be discarded, but here things have devolved into having to check whether any given reference actually says what he says it says.)
Love the photo of Junior with Trump and Pence.
The Canadian Broadcast Corp. cbc.ca recently had an interview with the African American sheriff of the county where Tuskegee, Alabama is located. He is enduring long Covid and urges everyone to be vaccinated. Yes, Tuskegee experiment was real and needs to be remembered, but urging vulnerable populations to stay vulnerable is mean spirited, especially since Junior will be able to pay for expensive hospital care if he needs it.
I read the first chapter of his book – free, posted at Amazon. One lie after another to be polite. Promoting withdrawn studies supposedly proving ivermectin and therefore the vaccination efforts are all wrong. Promoting the John Birch Society’s AAPS group even though the JBS hated his dad and uncle and were not sad to see them killed. I also watched the video clips on Junior’s website having discussion with Tucker Carlson and disgraceful is an understatement.
I have highest respect for President Kennedy, his efforts to ensure nuclear war did not happen, signing the withdrawal effort for Vietnam, restarting negotiations to reopen relations with Cuba, etc. I agree these are reasons he was extrajudicially removed from office, which our society still has PTSD about. But I side with Junior’s siblings who think he’s lost his way. Moral of the story: don’t take medical advice from traumatized lawyers.
Did it include the Scylla and Charybdis line? “The desolate destination where democracy goes to die”? (I do not for one second believe that RFKJr came up with “pajandrum” all by his lonesome.)
The really odd thing, though, given that Skyhorse likely has little overhead other than warehouse space, it’s that it’s terribly typeset — the usual rule is no more than three line-ending hyphens, which is pretty silly,* but they wouldn’t turn them on at all for this low-rent mess. There are rivers of whitespace. This “design decision” pretty much hinges on not having too many polysyllabic words.
Gerrit Noordzij demonstrates this quite well in *Letterletter.
For example: There are many scientific articles claiming that thimerosal is neurotoxic and can cause developmental disorders. Here is one, but others are easy to find: https://www.nature.com/articles/4001529
Thimerosal was removed from some vaccines, but autism rates did not decrease. So, because of that, the official narrative declared that thimerosal must have nothing to do with autism. No further questioning was needed, and thimerosal is still used in flu vaccines.
This is just one example of something RFK Jr. may have been right about. No, I do NOT trust RFK Jr.’s opinions on vaccines, since he is an anti-vax activist. On the other hand, it does NOT follow that everything he has said about vaccines is wrong.
No, it’s not. This is a mouse study from 2004. Large human studies show the opposite.
This is an example of an anti-vaccine talking point, a point of misinformation that RFK Jr. promotes and you repeated. https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-ingredients/thimerosal
See the long list of references.
Oh man, a cdesign proponentist and a thimerosal advocate?
IR, you’re a delightful time warp.
“It’s just a jump to the Left,
Then a step to the right!
Put your hands on your hips,
bring you knees in tight!
Well it’ the pelvic thrust,
that’ll drive you insane!
Let’s do the Time Warp again!”
So what? Junior is an unhinged fanatic. I haven’t read everything he has said about vaccination, but what I have read of his is wrong to the point of being deranged.I feel confident that I am better informed by assuming everything he says is a falsehood.
If, as you said, ‘Thimerosal was removed from some vaccines, but autism rates did not decrease’, what conclusions would you come to?
If you use logic, then ‘Thimerosal causes autism’ would not be one of them.
Anti-vaxxers scoff about the huge increases in ASD rates since the 1990s especially in the past twenty years. WAIT! Wasn’t thimerosal removed around 2000 and YET rates kept climbing!
I always speculate that perhaps thimerosal was protective and prevented ASDs**
** only joking : we know what “causes” autism as I’ve written many times.
Both formats are already available at libgen; I wouldn’t be too surprised if WSU’s library had it.
@Dorit Reiss
“No, it’s not. This is a mouse study from 2004. Large human studies show the opposite.”
Many studies show thimerosal can be a neurotoxin that can cause developmental disorders is some susceptible children. You trust the ones you want to trust.
The fact that there has been so much research showing it can be a neurotoxin should not be ignored. Especially when infants are given more and more vaccines.
Most of the vaccine skeptics are now banned and censored. I am glad that at least some are still allowed, at least for now.
No, it does not work that way.
Large human studies show no link between the amounts of thimerosal in vaccines and neurological harms.
Mice or cell studies suggest some amounts of thimerosal can be an issue. These do not show the vaccines given to children have any issue, and cannot counter large human studies. A few junk-level studies by anti-vaccine activists – several discussed in this blog – claim they have human data suggesting harm from thimerosal containing vaccines. because their methods are unreliable, they are invalid.
These are not equivalent. If you look at this data and conclude that there’s anything to RFK Jr.’s point of misinformation on thimerosal, you are choosing to reject the data and follow a lie. That makes you wrong.
Choosing disinformation over facts is not choosing between equal things.
Note that your support for that bit of misinformation from RFK Jr. further undermines your attempt to pretend you’re a reasonable middle, rather than an anti-vaccine activist.
I am not a chemist and won’t pretend to be. I do remember, though, mercury problems with the reservoirs created by the massive James Bay dams about a third of a century ago (northern Quebec). As I recall the flooding of the boreal forests converted “natural” mercury in the soil into a more toxic form that was easily absorbed. The local native First Nations rely on fish and the fish got contaminated. Before the dams, the natural mercury in that environment wasn’t a big problem but now it is due to the chemical change from the rotting forest in the reservoirs. Methyl mercury if I recall correctly.
If RFK Jr. was really concerned about mercury he would not only notice that thimerosal has been mostly phased out, but also the contribution of the color-alkali industry, which uses mercury in the process and is a contributor to environmental mercury pollution. Chlorine feed stocks are one of the root causes of what we call “toxic waste” – PVC, bleaching of paper, most of the biocides, solvents, etc. Drinking water uses maybe one percent of the Cl production. Sewage, a couple percent. Dioxins and related compounds are carcinogenic among other problems. Perhaps there are a couple applications that would be difficult to find substitutes, but PVC and bleached paper have many alternatives.
On a political note, I’m glad to see Fox “news” in trouble over the messages some of the hosts sent during the January 6 attack on the Capitol. May it further lower their ratings and credibility …
In 2018, RFK Jr was part of a group of family members, aides and allies who called for Truth and Reconciliation for the assassinations of the 1960s, including his dad and uncle. I hope he can learn to extend that perspective to his own anti-health efforts. Maybe he could donate his salary toward helping ensure Covid vaccines are distributed to poor countries.
Hey IR, do you know what absolutely causes brain damage in children?
Prenatal exposure to rubella.
I’m sure we would all very much like to see your studies.
Know what else is a neurotoxin? Bilirubin. Your body is full of it. So is oxygen at sufficient levels. So is ammonia-you have some of that in your blood. So are about a dozen other things in your plasma right now. ALL exist at FAR higher blood levels than a dinky dose one time of thimerosol ever could.
“Especially when infants are given more and more vaccines.”
Name every childhood vaccine, on the schedule in your country, that contains thimerosal.
@ Indie Rebel
First, read my comment above! Just one more example of your NOT knowing what you are talking about!
As for autism, I guess you are unaware of the studies of brain autopsies on children diagnosed with autism who tragically died, e.g., car accident, etc. Findings that the changes in areas of brain and interconnectivity only could have happened in utero, so before received any vaccines. And i’m sure you’ve never heard of Paracelsus from the 15th Century who said “the dose makes the poison”. Thimerosal is less than half mercury and in trace amounts. Also there are two basic types of mercury, ethyl and methyl, the one used in thimerosal doesn’t usually cross the blood-brain barrier. Finally, our bodies have mechanisms for protecting against mercury and other potential toxins, as long as in minute doses. And autism is a behavioral diagnosis, not based on physical signs and the definition has changed. Not worth giving more info and including numerous references because as with evolution, you are the expert. Expert in intellectual dishonesty.
No discussion of RFK Jr.’s fascination with Holocaust imagery is complete without a mention of his “final solution”, which appears in a promo for his keynote address at the 2021 Autism One conclave:
“We are in the last battle. This is the apocalypse. We are fighting for the salvation of humanity. We all knew this was coming at some point. I never believed it would come in my lifetime, but here it is…”
“We have to fight, and we have to die with our boots on if necessary. Everybody here, I’m confident, knows what their duty is and is going to do that duty, and I’m going to be beside you when you do it.”
RFK Jr.
https://pheedloop.com/AutismOne2021Conference/site/home/
It ranks down there with Del Bigtree telling his followers that it’s time for them to use their Second Amendment rights i.e. guns to get what they want.
Antivax leaders have become increasingly unhinged in urging on their devotees. It wouldn’t surprise me to see a homicidal plot unfold like the one just foiled in Germany.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “Many people believe that vaccine safety problems are sometimes covered up, and that does not seem a terribly far-fetched idea. If we express skepticism, we should not be labeled anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists, and banned from social media. But that is exactly what is happening now.”
Yep, antivaxxers have been silenced. Yikes! They have testified numerous times before Congress, State Legislatures, City Councils, School Boards, Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, etc. And they have a large number of websites, some extremely well-funded, millions of dollars, with large followings; e.g. National Vaccine Information Center, Safe Minds, Age of Autism, and RFK Jr’s Children’s Defense Fund. They have had OpEds in numerous newspapers. And they have had mass demonstrations. And some have resorted to violence, literally assaulting school board members, etc. And, just as with anything else, there are always “PhDs”, “MDs”, etc. who, for whatever reason, support their views, just as there are MDs who practice homeopathy, etc. And they do get articles published in medical journals, research, often poorly designed, editorials, etc. And, despite some efforts, they have had a lot of success with social media. And as I have already discussed, they are so stupid that they think focusing on profits proves anything.
Claiming antivax views are being suppressed is just BS; but, at the same time, at some point when claims made by them have been overwhelmingly shown to be wrong, it is absurd to continue to allow worthless repetition in all forums that could sway idiots like you!
I like how you linked to a study in Nature on mice. Well, I can link to studies showing how nuts are toxic to dogs; but healthy for humans. I do give my dog some peanut butter; but, in case you are unaware, peanuts are NOT nuts, they are legumes.
@MedicalYeti
“So are about a dozen other things in your plasma right now. ALL exist at FAR higher blood levels than a dinky dose one time of thimerosol ever could.”
It depends on how many thimerosal containing vaccines a child is given. And what may be a dinky does for an adult might not be so dinky for an infant.
There is all kinds of research on this topic, some of it showing thimerosal in vaccines can be harmful, some it showing it can’t. Typical of medical research. There is no reason to dismiss the possibility that thimerosal may have triggered some cases of autism in susceptible children.
Yes RFK Jr. may be an anti-vax fanatic. It does not follow that everything he says is wrong, or that he should be ignored.
Keep in mind how much political power the drug industry has now. When they tell us something is perfectly safe, we should at least be skeptical and do some of our own reading.
I don’t have kids, but if I did I would be damn careful about vaccines, and would learn as much as I could before deciding which ones they should get. The vaccine makers want us to believe that vaccines promote health, and that we should be vaccinated against as many infectious diseases as possible. But no, vaccines do not promote health and they are not harmless. Some may be necessary. As with most controversies, the truth is not found in either extreme, but depends on careful thought and balancing of risks.
A little tip for you,Indy. Repeating a falsehood multiple times doesn’t make it true.
“The vaccine makers want us to believe that vaccines promote health, and that we should be vaccinated against as many infectious diseases as possible”
It’s already been pointed out that there are loads of vaccines that no one will ever recommend you have, unless you are planning a trip to certain parts of the world.
Thimerosal was removed removed from vaccines, without any public health effect. So obviously, it is not dangerous.
Nobody believes that drugsare safe because Big Pharma says so. There are clinical trials and follow up studies (last ones not financed by pharmaceutical companies,if this is your problem). Alternative medicine has lots of political support, and whole Republican party is quite antivaccine now,
Curious thing is that lots of people believe that alternative medicine does miracles, just because practioners say so. And of course, any criticism would be Big Pharma plot, caused by atheistic materialistic religion.
Who do you think creates the vaccine schedule? Hint, it’s not the pharmaceutical companies.
“It depends on how many thimerosal containing vaccines a child is given. ”
None. You yourself said that thimerosal was removed from pediatric vaccines. Therefore, children get no thimerosal containing vaccines.
You know what does cause brain damage? Infectious diseases. You know what prevents infectious diseases? Vaccines.
If RFK doesnt want questioned about using the phrase “Final Solution”, its probably best not to use the phrase “Final Solution”.
Folks, I always joke that one of these days the Energizer Bunny is going to walk across one of Orac’s posts. ‘It goes on, and on, and on…’ It’ s always the same blathering. This one being the common iteration of how a high profile ‘antivaxxer’ is really an antivaxxer and even though he denies it.
The funny thing– or sad one if see it another way– the pandemic was set to end all this. The table was set so beautifully for vaccines to play the hero and vanquish all the antivaxx fiends for good, and sparing Orac from ever writing about them again.
True story: back in early spring I ran into T at our tennis club T and I had prior long discussions about vaccines and though he was inclined to believe in them, he was willing to listen to my ‘antivaxx’ spiels about their shortcomings.
So, there were T and I sitting on a bench overlooking the courts. T then asked me what I thought of the Covid mRNA vaccine. I did my best to be informative, educating him on the technology behind the vaccine, but concluding that I am skeptical of it as I am with all vaccines.
T politely listened and then he wrapped things up by saying he was hesitant to get the vaccine, but got it due to work travel. He added that the world was on the cusp of a decisive moment for vaccines. He stated, if within a year after people the world over took the vaccine and we were able to stop Covid, it would be the ultimate victory for vaccination.
I reflected on this, and ended up agreeing with T. Covid might just settle the vaccination stand-off. Would I ran into T again and find him gloating with him saying, ‘see Greg, the vaccine saved us all.’
Imagine if after a year highly vaxxed North America had no cases and deaths, and it was actually still unvaxxed India and Africa reeling in Covid cases and misery? Who would have argued then that the provaxxers won. Wouldn’t Orac be able to respond to RFKjr with just a ‘look’?!
Yet, a year in, we find again that you guys were exposed. The emperor truly has no clothes. All you guys have is a conned masses.
@ Greg
As usual you are full of it. The latest data show between 3 to 6 times number of hospitalized cases are unvaccinated compared to vaccinated. And, as I already showed, the actual number of cases in India far greater than officially reported.
You are NOT just wrong; but dishonest given I doubt you missed what I and others have written.
Misleading stat, Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH. Let’s consider a hypothetical country with a population of 100. Out of those 100, 80 are fully vaxxed and 20 are unvaxxed. After exposure to Covid, we find four hospitalized unvaxxed cases and only one vaxxed hospitalized case.
Wow! Is that not an impressive stat for Covid vaccination?! Where do we go from here? Do we not have every right to ostracize the foolish, dangerous ‘antivaxxers’, firing them from their jobs and barring them access to their community?
Yet, what are we missing in that stat. We are missing that the 79 ‘spared’ vaxxed individuals are only partially protected with a leaky vaccine, and are permanently at risk at contracting Covid down the road. They are only temporarily spared. As for the 17 unaffected unvaxxed cases, they have acquired superior natural immunity and are at an extremely reduced risk of contracting Covid down the road.
And, ignoring everything in the preceeding paragraph, this is how the vaccine pushers spin the lie that we are coming out ahead with the vaccines, and even if India, Africa and Eastern Europe are strongly pointing to the missing details.
And, I notice Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH did not respond to this from me…
Indeed, natural immunity is superior as the research suggest, and we should expect it to provide a better fix at halting the pandemic. News that Omicron is also breaking through natural immunity should be treated as the exception rather than the rule. Supporting this, as quickly as it started, Omicron is starting to recede in low vaxxed, high natural immunity South Africa.
Don’t expect such a miracle for the highly vaxxed regions of the world. Their huge vaxxed numbers and poor protection will provide ample dry wood for Omicron to burn through over a sustained period.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/already-past-peak-south-africa-121247466.html
@Greg You can,of course, cite a real country, that is Singapore:
https://www.moh.gov.sg/
Unvaccinated still crowd ICUs and mortuaries
Addendum: Last I saw T, he agreed that the persecution of the unvaxxed was not right, and he said he has no intention of getting a booster
I’m sure that T was sincere when he “… agreed that the persecution of the unvaxxed was not right, and … has no intention of getting a booster”,
rather than saying what he had to to make a quick escape.
BTW, I am not T.
There is a 99.3% chance this is total, fabricated, bat guano. Thanks for sharing, however, as it made for an amusing read.
Look, jackwagon, you seem to still be conned by the McCollough baloney about India and Africa. Have you ever been to either place? I’ve been to both. Multiple times. Lots of people outside in the sunlight all day long. My money is on vitamin D being the lynchpin on this NOT VACCINES.
Multiple studies seem to hint at this. There is a signal there. I have seen it, myself, in clinical practice. Since we are in a northern location, I began checking vitamin D levels in folks admitted with covid. The sicker ones were dark-skinned individuals who get very little sunlight and had low vitamin d. We’re talking about ten or eleven cases for sure-so take it with a grain of salt (See how I’m not CERTAIN I’m right? You can learn from that.)
Again, is this a panacea? Heck no. It’s something we can continue to study. Here are a few studies:
Metaanalysis->PMID: 34894254
New one-> PMID: 34909131
PMID: 32474141
PMID: 32252338
Medical, I advise that you go with the .7%. Do you really think I would lie with such a mundane story?! Hell — I could’ve ham it up and say that T reported that moments after getting his shot, he ended up in the ICU with tubes coming out of every inch of his body. Actually, he said, all he had was a sore arm and things were pretty uneventful.
I brought up the story because T rightly anticipated that the pandemic and Covid vaccination would serve as a seminal moment in the vaccination war. T heard my ‘antivaxx’ spiels before, and, whether he believed they were reasonable arguments, it would take more to sway him. It would take actual results, and the pandemic offered that opportunity.
Consider, the ‘anti-vaxxers’ argue that epidemics in the past were well on their way out before vaccines, vaccines didn’t save us and at times made things worse, and natural immunity was what really saved us. Perhaps it was easy to contest these points because we were talking ancient history; with the current pandemic, however, these points are all taking central stage, and right now you are getting tko’d on every one of them.
So, maybe you guys are now hoping that cases will go down in the coming spring and maybe we will fumble our way out of the pandemic Actually, should that happen, I expect you guys will spin it that in the end our patience with the vaccines really paid off. Why wouldn’t you if the public is always so apt to swallow such BS.
Still, smart people are keeping score. They know, and you know, that you’re getting knocked square on your ass during this match.
Perusing SBM over my morning cereal and curses, but the mighty Nell had a couple of links far too good not to share regarding India and the fitting of “facts” to a predetermined conclusion:
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/14/world/asia/india-modi-science-icmr.html?unlocked_article_code=AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACEIPuonUktbfqohkQVUaBybKWsIjolqPnvnGh706in73aS2SRTcH1O8UDo6L9gLMbq95Idsv2jDRDPlwDIgSft0ghOlOIx4qDACyvpqPnJlCLXg88NjrAG1zhMuWAPVlqma6KzmzJbs6lLCx70jcbTXpCKPbwmRhcFg-2eZtdl2g2HYPwK_XQKUiipQlg6BXVt0tTiwAZSKJo_HoFx17Xd6GZRvZ4QE3MPpLDXCRxZXPruJdL3gBTA7OX3h94m4j6NhDOttxP633LRAoeMCWkqzmx1qy6GHPaRijxrc4Wkbb&smid=url-share
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.04.21261604v2.full
And this is on top of public heath systems that are phenomenally inadequate for a 1.3Bn population, even in a good year. So West and the rest can go fark themselves: not only are India’s low COVID stats easily explained by massively inadequate intelligence but there is confirmation that they are also the product of calculated fraud at the highest levels of government, two more qualities the Disease Perverts are full of too. /out
@ has
India is way to crazily heavily politicised for science not be a casualty.
To me, that’s not an issue of science and facts against politics.
Given the environment over there, we shouldn’t expect anything to take precedence over politics. It’s simply unrealistic.
It’s an issue for the indians, as to whether their government follows science or not. But from afar, we cannot do anything else but watch.
But the environment over there leaves no fighting chance for science against the political stakes.
Indian politics are fascinatingly crazy. And the New York Times is doing a poor job at giving you a sense of how crazy it is.The society is so heavily polarised over there that I do not see how silencing scientific expertise could impact much the political landscape over there.
They just raised the mariage age to 21. I think people care about more about that over there for the moment.
There’s no way even a highly vaccinated North America would have no cases or deaths within 12 months. That assertion betrays your lack of understanding.
India and Africa are indeed both reeling in COVID cases and misery. The US is struggling too, since the COVID vaccination rate has yet to reach the herd immunity threshold.
But look at the highly vaccinated populations of New Zealand, Australia, and Taiwan Some pretty impressive numbers there.
New Zealand, Australia and Taiwan are not really all that highly vaccinated on a whole-of-population basis. Australia is doing the best of the three, but it’s about 75%. Taiwan, at about 64%, is pretty unremarkable amongst countries that have good access to vaccines. Compare with the EU average of ~68%, USA 61%.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations# (TABLE tab in the data display)
Australia currently has just under 90% of those eligible to be vaccinated (12+ years old) fully vaccinated (still defined here as 2 shots), and it will probably take the vaccination of the 5-11 age cohort before we get to actually have a very high whole population vaccination rate. That part of the vaccination program isn’t due to start until January.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-02/charting-australias-covid-vaccine-rollout/13197518#peopleaus
IMO, what has helped a lot in Australia and New Zealand (and possibly also Taiwan) have been border closures (both internal and external), mask wearing and lockdowns. At least until Delta arrived, though only two states (Victoria and New South Wales) were badly affected by Delta..
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “Most of the vaccine skeptics are now banned and censored. I am glad that at least some are still allowed, at least for now.Most of the vaccine skeptics are now banned and censored. I am glad that at least some are still allowed, at least for now.”
I’ve covered this above. It is a typical ploy/strategy of anyone who has lost a debate to claim foul play. Read my comment above! Some antivaccinationists only want people to “listen to them” but if one follows their history what they mean is similar to a parent who says to kid: “You didn’t listen to me, so no dessert tonight.” In other words, they are interested in an open civil rational dialogue; but in people accepting as true what they claim. Never happen!
You write: “The vaccine makers want us to believe that vaccines promote health, and that we should be vaccinated against as many infectious diseases as possible. But no, vaccines do not promote health and they are not harmless. Some may be necessary. As with most controversies, the truth is not found in either extreme, but depends on careful thought and balancing of risks.
And I’ve answered this. I don’t base decisions on what pharmaceutical companies claim; but on studies/reports from literally around the world. You and others keep focusing on vaccine manufacturers as if they are the literally only source of VALID information. And, yes, vaccines promote health. I had all the childhood diseases, measles, chicken pox, mumps, rotavirus, etc. and just suffered for a few days each; however, if I had passed any on to another child with a comorbidity or autoimmune disease, could have been catastrophic. We know, for instance, that during 1950s about 50,000 kids per year were hospitalized with measles, 450-500 died, and another 1,000 or so suffered hearing loss or blindness. Given our population has doubled and with advent of neonatal intensive care units, more kids with comorbidities, without the vaccine we could expect up to 100,000 hospitalized, 1,000 or more deaths, and many more deaf or blinded. Even if I were fairly certain my kids not in danger, since I have studied measles vaccine for decades and know it is safe, I would still get my kids vaccinated in order to protect other innocent children and, of course, so my kids would avoid an unpleasant week. I believe in community. I value the lives of ALL children, even those with comorbidies, etc. And, for instance, diphtheria treatable with antibiotics; but without the vaccine and with rise of antibiotic resistance potentially many could die. I can’t think of a single vaccine currently given to children that doesn’t reduce their risk of a week or so of suffering and reduce risk of worse to some other kids.
You write: “There is all kinds of research on this topic, some of it showing thimerosal in vaccines can be harmful, some it showing it can’t. Typical of medical research. There is no reason to dismiss the possibility that thimerosal may have triggered some cases of autism in susceptible children.”
The amount of ethyl mercury in vaccines is based on studies of the more toxic methyl mercury. Based on large amounts of data, a cut-off safety point was decided if even minimal signs the mercury affected anyone. Then they divided that quantity by 10 and then by 10 again, so the max allowed in any one shot was 1/100 any found indication of even minimal effect. So, even if a kid given 3 or 4 vaccines containing thimerosal at once, would be 0.03 or 0.04 of lowest risk.
And, NOPE, again, no valid evidence that thimerosal associated with autism.
Besides autopsies of brains, family films of kids later diagnosed with autism depicted early signs BEFORE they were given vaccines. Some of these films go back decades.
You just keep making a fool of yourself, pontificating on a subject you know NOTHING about. Doesn’t surprise me given your railing about atheists and materialists, that is, your dismissing out of hand anything written on evolution by someone you can attach a label to as if ones beliefs automatically nullify any evidence.
By the way, just one example of RFKs idiocy. Throughout most of book he discusses the case that HIV not responsible for AIDS and he literally condemns AZT and other retrovirals, claiming the drugs responsible for deaths, not disease; but then in a later chapter he writes that AIDS is killing lots of people in South Africa because the pharmaceutical industries patents keep the price of the drugs too high. He contradicts himself on other subjects as well.
@ EVERYONE
WHY THERE IS NO AUTISM EPIDEMIC
HIDING IN PLAIN SIGHT
The late Autism researcher Lorna Wing (2005). wrote: “Nothing exists until it has a name.” As an example, in a 910 treatise, the Persian/Arab physician, Al-Razi, noticed that a disease, up to then considered one, actually was two separate diseases, smallpox and measles (Cliff, 1993, p.52). So, did smallpox or measles suddenly develop in the 10th Century?
Contributing Factors to Diagnoses of Autism Spectrum Disorders:
Leo Kanner’s 1943 article introduced the diagnosis of Autism and gave estimated statistics (based only on his own office practice); but in 1971, at a conference, he admitted that he rejected minorities and working class whites, believing it only a diagnosis for children of educated whites. A number of journal articles and other reports, going back to early 1900s, used mental retardation and childhood schizophrenia diagnostic categories; but if I gave the listed symptoms without the source, they would definitely be categorized as Autism Spectrum Disorders. A few described cases from various sources from the 19th Century and earlier would similarly be today diagnosed as ASD.
Psychiatry was a relatively new profession, only developing the last two decades of the 19th Century, so nearly impossible to know how people with problems would have been diagnosed earlier. Prior to World War II, there were few to no social services in the U.S., the age required for school attendance was lower and children with problems were either just kicked out, some finding menial jobs, some institutionalized.
After World War II, with the rise of America’s middle class and family politics, more attention was paid to children. After the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik, more funds and programs and emphasis on public education was developed and the minimal age for leaving school increased.
Psychology became a popular degree in American universities and we began churning out psychologists, school counselors, and more psychiatrists and, of course, this led to more work needed for them.
Originally ASD was diagnosed by psychiatrists using various techniques; but gradually standardized diagnostic instruments were developed, allowing for easier and quicker diagnoses by others.
In 1986 the Federal government passed legislation for grants to local schools for special education, dealing with children with problems. In the early 1990s this was extended to include ASD. Studies have found as the number of cases of ASD increases, the number of cases diagnosed as mentally retarded or childhood schizophrenia have decreased, at least, partially a response to availability of funds.
What was originally classical autism cases, became Autism Spectrum Disorders. Asberger’s wasn’t added until 1994 and there are cases of men in their 70s who have been diagnosed with Asberger’s. ASD includes kids with a variety of different signs and symptoms; but with some in common. As an example, in the 19th Century, high levels of white blood cells were originally thought to be signs of infectious disease; but then discovered to be cancer, so they were included in the category Cancer. Certainly doesn’t mean that cases of cancer were
increasing, just another group was added. Blood cancers differ in many respects from solid tumor cancers; also have signs and symptoms in common. Another example, imagine that medicine begins looking at respiratory diseases, first including just asthma and pneumonia, then later emphysema, chronic obstructive disease, cancer, etc. Imagine the government creates a separate institute with lots of funding and grants, both for research and education, ending up with more and more respiratory therapists, pulmonologists, and researchers and, of course, diagnosed cases. Increased awareness/screening/surveillance.
Childhood mortality has been decreasing over the past century. Children who would have died at birth or early on, e.g., low birthweight, especially very low birthweight, and genetic disorders, now can live long lives; but often have physical, cognitive, and emotional problems. A relationship has been found between ASD and children born to older parents, more mutations in eggs and sperm.
We live in the age of a therapeutic society. More and more people are being diagnosed with something. If this continues, no one will exist who doesn’t have some medical/psychiatric label (e.g., Brownless, 2007; Hadler, 2007; Payer, 1988, 1992; Welch, 2011).
Since World War II over 85,000 new chemicals have been introduced into our environment with little to no oversight. Before then, despite overwhelming medical science, lead was added to gasoline. A mass of studies has found that HIGH levels of lead in the blood of fetus and children results in lowered intelligence, behavioral problems, etc. And studies have found some post-war chemicals “cause” ASD when fetus exposed. High levels, not the minuscule levels of various additives in vaccines. So, yes, one can attribute some increase in ASD to the environment, either interaction with genes or by itself; but this doesn’t change that the overwhelming majority of cases can be explained by the above. And a number of well-done studies in different nations has found NO relationship between vaccines and ASD.
I believe in community and wish a society where all human beings are treated with dignity and resources provided for them to obtain whatever potential they have, so I support evermore funding for children and adults labeled with ASD; but also cerebral palsy, Down’s Syndrome, etc. All lives are precious. And we can “easily” afford this if our governments didn’t continuously lie to us about threats from abroad, while acting on behalf of corporations (access to raw materials and selling of weapons), resulting in CIA, MI6, and military spending trillions of dollars, risking our loyal military, and killing, crippling and impoverishing people in developing nations who were NEVER a threat to us. Of course, by killing them, we become the enlistment stimulus for terrorist groups, which we then claim the need to defend against, a vicious circle. Trillions of dollars that could have benefited us and used for real foreign aid (Blum. 2003; Butler, 1935; Gaffney, 2019; Schlessinger, 2005).
REFERENCES:
Blum W (2003). Killing Hope: US Military & CIA Interventions since World War II. Available at:
https://www.cia.gov/library/abbottabad-compound/13/130AEF1531746AAD6AC03EF59F91E1A1_Killing_Hope_Blum_William.pdf
Butler, Major General Smedley (1935). War Is A Racket. Available at: https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.pdf [Butler is the most decorated Marine in history]
Brownlee S (2007). Overtreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer.
Cliff A, Haggett P, Smallman-Raynor M (1993). Measles: An Historical Geography of a Major Human Viral Disease. Blackwell.
Gaffney M (2018 Mar). Corporate Power and Expansive U.S. Military Policy. American Journal of Economics and Sociology; 77(2): 331-417. Available at: https://www.globalresearch.ca/corporate-power-and-expansive-u-s-military-policy/5653310
Hadler NM (2007). The Last Well Person: How to Stay Well Despite the Health-Care System.
Harrison JA (2018 Nov 9). Wrong About Polio: A Review of Suzanne Humphries, MD and Roman Bystrianyk’s “Dissolving Illusions” Part 1. Science-Based Medicine. Available at:
https://n1s1t23sxna2acyes3x4cz0h-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Part-1-Joel-A.-Harrison-2018-Oct-28.-Wrong-About-Polio-A-Review-of-Suzanne-Humphries-MD-and-Roman-Bystrianyk-“Dissolving-Illusions”-long-version.pdf [if link doesn’t work, cut & paste or just type title in Google]
Payer L (1988). Medicine & Culture: Varieties of Treatment in the United States, England, West Germany, and France.
Payer L (1992). Disease-Mongers: How Doctors, Drug Companies, and Insurers are Making You Feel Sick.
Schlesinger SC, Kinzer S (2005). Bitter Fruit: The Untold story of the American Coup in Guatemala (revised version). Harvard University Press.
Welch HG, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S (2011). Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health.
Wing L (2005 Apr). Reflections on Opening Pandora’s Box. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders; 35(2): 197-203.
Thanks Joel!
Great comments and links. An irony … ratical.org is a site that I used to really like but has promoted far right nonsense about the pandemic. The host is very concerned about scientific fraud regarding alleged safety claims for nuclear power (and I share this concern) but doesn’t seem to notice that John Bircher hoaxers are not exactly scientific heroes for spouting antifaxxer BS claiming masks don’t work … sigh. The host’s background is not science – he is a piano teacher and has been involved in conspiracy research for decades. On the latter, I agree with him on many of those claims but there’s no filtering of claims on the pandemic. Being suspicious of everything is not a way to do good research especially if one lacks training in the subject.
@Terrie
“Antivax sentiment is always based on ableism. Always.”
Haha, really? Having a normally functioning brain is not a big deal?
Thank you for proving my point.
Q.E.D.
And what exactly is a ‘normally functioning brain’?
Actually, it is people with autism have no brain, as Robert Kennedy Jr puts it,
Speaking of the Energizer bunny meme:
https://www.saltwire.com/atlantic-canada/opinion/michael-de-adder-cartoon-energizer-bunny-virus-marches-to-the-anti-vax-beat-100666440/
@Greg
Also consider that the vaccines’ effectiveness wears off in just a few months. Does that mean boosters will be required several times a year? Great news for the vaccine makers, if that’s how it turns out.
@ Indie Rebel
First, vaccine effectiveness doesn’t wear off in a few months. Yep, antibody titers lower; but still, together with T-cells, short-term plasma cells, long-term plasma cells, and memory B-cells, provide protection. Numerous studies have found significantly lower hospitalizations, long covid, and deaths in vaccinated.
And you continue with your dishonest focus on profits. First, while currently for many pharmaceuticals the profits are obscene and Congress has the legal/Constitutional authority to stop this, e.g., insulin, epi-pens, etc.; but getting a booster every 6 – 8 months is NOT a big deal, especially for those who understand the risks from the disease vs the minimal risk from the vaccine.
You just continue to display your ignorance. Difficult to believe you have a PhD? I’ve already mentioned that a search of just one of Covid vaccines, Moderna, found 641 papers on PubMed, some follow-ups of 6 months or more.
So, if “Rebel” refers to Confederate states, normally intelligent people know they LOST!
Yes. It would be good news for the vaccine manufacturers. Could be good news for people who might otherwise die as well. Not to mention breathing space to continue looking into better treatments.
And to think that it’s only been a couple of weeks since Polly showed up to defend
Oz’s honorReiki, or something.P.S. Please ask the Universal Blob-Mind how to use the “reply” button, jackass.
I thought it was some kind of anti-vax secret handshake.
@Indie
You are a true warrior, Indie. I agree that the real pandemic has been going on for decades now. Imagine, they throw kids under a bus, run over them, ‘celebrate’ their injuries, and then rail that others are ableist monsters for calling out the crime!
Oh, no, he wants help with his anal glands again.
And what ‘real pandemic has been going on for decades now’? Please teach us, we must not be smart enough to know what you’re talking about…
Or is that a dog whistle for ‘autism’?
Autism is not caused by vaccines. You always repeat false statements, But people believing have actually chemically castrated their children, which is really monstrous.
@ EVERYONE
Orac mentioned RFK’s defense of Katie Wright, who claimed chelation therapy helped her autistic kid. First chelation doesn’t penetrate the blood-brain barrier; but if it did, already damaged brain cells would NOT immediately, if ever, revert to normal, so would only remove mercury after the fact; yet, parents who observed chelation therapy reported instantaneous changes in their children. People see what they wish to see. And chelation therapy actually killed at least a couple of children. Chelation doesn’t remove just mercury; but other essential metals and doctors who weren’t prepared to infuse these, death!
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
Vaccine effectiveness decreases within a few months, especially for variants. And there will always be variants. Boosters will be required AT LEAST every 6 months, probably every 3 months. And the cumulative effects of mRNA vaccines are not known.
And who is paying for hundreds of millions of vaccines every year? The middle class taxpayers of course.
@ Indie Rebel
Just how dense are you. Yep, effectiveness is less for some variants; but doesn’t mean lack of effectiveness. So far, original vaccines have still, on the whole, protected people from serious infections, hospitalizations, long covid, and deaths from the Delta variant. And if less protection from Omicron, it is one year since vaccine rolled out. I don’t think it all that problematic to get another vaccine.
And you continue to ignore what I wrote about profits. Ignoring your ignorance, for most of us the vaccines significantly reduce our risk from Covid-19. So, based on that, what would you have the pharmaceutical companies do, produce vaccines at a loss???
Just how STUPID are you???
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “And the cumulative effects of mRNA vaccines are not known.”
mRNA breaks down quickly in the cell cytoplasm, so, in essence, it only produces a limited number of proteins, with Covid vaccines, protein is S-Spike Protein. And there is absolutely no valid research by itself the S-spike protein can do any damage, especially given that the immune system almost immediately attacks it.
Imagine someone cut of the first joint of your finger. It couldn’t ring a doorbell, pulls a trigger, do anything, well, by analogy, applies to the S-Spike Protein.
As I have explained several times, over 650 papers on Moderna mRNA vaccine alone, including follow-ups approaching one year. Probably equal number of papers for Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, etc.
Keep on with your stupid hypotheses. Just digging yourself an ever bigger hole.
This is antibody titre, not effectiviness against infection. Cite some papers.
I am now convinced Indie Rebel is a sock puppet created by Big Pharma, because from the nym on down to the stuff about thimerosal IR hits EVERY spot on Orac’s bingo card of disingenuous-antivaxer-claiming-to-just-be-asking-reasonable-questions. It’s just soo on-the-nose, you have to wonder if it’s a false flag. ; – )
Maybe she is SARS-CoV-2.
I’ve been beginning to wonder that myself.
I will note, however, that “Indie Rebel” has engaged in sockpuppeting in the past, as he’s appeared under two other ‘nyms (that I’m so far aware of), freetothink and Polly Chase. Despite the ban on sockpuppeting that I enforce, I haven’t acted because he/she/it has used “Indie Rebel” exclusively for nearly three months now. If I every find any examples of Indie Rebel sockpuppeting again, though, the ban hammer will come down with extreme prejudice. The only reason I didn’t do it three months ago was because I didn’t notice at the time.
Perhaps it might be better to look for Gepetto. Sound familiar?
@Renate
“And what exactly is a ‘normally functioning brain’?”
I guess you want a simple, one line definition.
But I think we can agree that someone who has great difficulty with things most of us do easily — processing language, for example — has some kind of brain dysfunction. Or a schizophrenic hearing voices saying to kill his mother — maybe that person does not have a normally functioning brain. Or someone who never was able to learn to talk, or cannot learn simple arithmetic.
Do you really need more examples?
@ Indie Rebel
And you are a perfect example of someone whose brain doesn’t have a normally functioning brain as you ignore what I and others write and just regurgitate the same stupidity.
By the way, read my comment above about Why There is No Autism Epidemic. Maybe you will learn something; but based on your dysfunctional brain, I doubt it.
You’re an operational definition already. It’s cute that you had to turn the question upside-down though, which gives you a nearly inexhaustible supply of escape routes from your actual assertion: “Inferiors” à la carte.
And yet most of the bairns on the autistic spectrum I met (hint: lots, as that was my job) could talk, learn arithmetic, communicate pretty well or as well as most neuro-typicals manage if not better and – shock horror – some of them even went to university where at least one was taught by a lecturer who was also autistic…
Please check out what autism actually is. That would be really helpful.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD
Calling your opponents stupid is a sure sign that a dogmatist feels threatened.
I’m just finding out about Peter Mccullough — he is a highly qualified cardiologist, who has been involved with this pandemic since the beginning. He says many good treatments have been suppressed, because of the focus on vaccination. He says, for example, one small under-powered study convinced the FDA that HCQ should not be used as a covid treatment.
Mccullough is confused by what he considers an incompetent approach to the pandemic. He had great success giving patients early treatment with drugs that are inexpensive and safe, such as HCQ and Ivermectin, and others. But all that was brushed aside so the focus could be entirely on genetic vaccines.
Of course the “fact checkers” that uphold the mainstream party line will say he’s all wrong about everything.
I CANNOT BE STUPID! I AM A GOLDEN GOD!
@ Indie Rebel
Yep, at one time Peter McCullough was a well-respected cardiologist; but he was fired from his tenured position. Linus Pauling was one of the most brilliant chemists of the 20th Century, a Nobel Prize winner, then in later life he became a fanatic about megadoses of vitamin C preventing and curing just about anything. Well, he was totally wrong. Vitamin C is a water soluble vitamin, body can only absorb so much at a time, then rest in vitamin C enriched urine.
As for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, you claim you have been following the blog for a long time, guess you missed that Orac has completely debunked either being of any use for Covid-19, not one but several articles; but, you will believe what you will, so don’t get the vaccine, don’t wear a mask, and if you get Covid-19, only use hydroxychloroquine and/or ivermectin. Nobody here will miss you.
And calling you stupid is an accurate description as you ignore almost everything I and others write and just keep throwing out garbage. And I don’t believe you have a PhD, maybe a mail-order one.
I remember what was probably your first comment, attacking Orac by claiming he was against healthy diets and exercise, which was typical dichotomous approach used by you. He and I both support healthy diets and exercise; but not enough to prevent various infections and no guarantee infections won’t be severe, just improves the odds.
Indeed, Polly did a pretty crappy job of pretending to be rational while spoiling for a fight. I don’t read SBM comments, but I don’t imagine that she was any more coherent.
Cardiologist. You’re hilarious. Every doctor I have met who has some whackadoodle ideas about the pandemic is, without execption, some specialist who has NEVER taken care of a single covid patient. No offense to Orac but a lot of them are surgeons. They are never a hospitalist, an internist, or general practitioner who also works the wards/unit.
I had a guy last year who was in bad shape in our ICU and the Urologist was too scared to come in when called. I can give you about three dozen more stories like this-many involving cardiologists.
Something else you should know before you get bamboozled by the likes of McCollough is that he matches the definition to a tee of “Loony doctor fired for being a loon, a creep, or for cause in some other was who comes out as an antiestablishment maverick.” These are more common than you’d expect.
I could even pick out likely future candidates when at med school-the people who really believed in the “CRI” during OMT training, etc. They all matched into undesirable, easy residencies and still had trouble. One failed boards over seven times. I have no idea who will license her.
Speaking of that, If they complete training, some desperate organization will eventually hire then because they are nothing more than a license to bill with to that organization and don’t require a visa.
Years later, they will be canned or ushered toward the door in disgrace. Some will become the next brave mavericks.
“He says, for example, one small under-powered study convinced the FDA that HCQ should not be used as a covid treatment”
Reeearly? The FDA? The organisation who’s very reason for existence since the early part of the last century is to check efficacy and safety! An organisation with that much experience used one underpowered study to totally reject a possible treatment?
Says a cardiologist.
Anti-vaxxers, big on research. Except when someone tells them what they want to hear. You can read all about the FDAs revocation of the EUA for HCQ on their website if you like.
McCullough is a notorious liar. He has been exposed repeatedly.
https://photos.smugmug.com/The-Vaccination-Station/Infographics/i-qv7XFmp/0/763cc591/X5/dr-mccullough_s-claims-are-not-credible-X5.png
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“over 650 papers on Moderna mRNA vaccine alone, including follow-ups approaching one year. Probably equal number of papers for Pfizer, Johnson and Johnson, etc.”
Most drug research is funded by drug companies. Easy to make research turn out the way you want. And to file drawer he ones that don’t.
@ Indie Rebel
You really are STUPID and DISHONEST.
You reject 650 papers without even checking them. I guarantee that some, enough, were NOT funded by pharmaceutical companies. Other nations have public health departments responsible for monitoring drugs, including vaccines, and they publish reports. Oh, oops, they are all in the pockets of Big Pharma. They don’t give a shit about the welfare of their own nations people, including kids. Really???
But since you believe pharmaceutical companies fund all or most research and their products are for-profit, regardless of how beneficial or harmful, then I suggest you NEVER use any product from a pharmaceutical company. Sooner or later we will be rid of you.
Actuallyfollow up studies are not funded by drug companies, check them, if you do not like clinical trials
Interested readers- especially newbies- might want to learn about various theories describing exactly how vaccines cause autism. A good article is Vaccines and Autism: A Tale of Shifting Hypotheses Clin Infect Dis 2009 Feb 15 Gerber and Offit which presents these theories and their lack of support. Orac has also written about them as well.
Pseudoscientists speculate about the BBB becoming permeable and allowing toxic substances injected in vaccines (or consumed amd then transported via a leaky gut) to slip in and damage the brain areas implicated in ASD. YET research well before Wakefield’s illustrates that the areas implicated in ASDs are formed differently PRENATALLY. There are MORE cells, that are immature, smaller and poorly interconnected in the PFC. Over the years, additional details have emerged about the process that renders ASD brains different from average brains before birth: they can even specify during which trimester particular events in the developmental sequence occur.
Evidence for prenatal origins comes from autopsies, abortions, comparative anatomy/ developmental patterns ( mammals), observation of traits, imagery and genetic studies.
@ Indie Rebel
I forgot to mention that Peter McCullough is one of the founders of a doctors group, only a few hundred members, who don’t believe HIV causes AIDS, The Association of American Physicians And Surgeons, which Orac has written about several times. And you can go to Google, type: peter mccullough debunked
A number of good websites.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“As for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, you claim you have been following the blog for a long time, guess you missed that Orac has completely debunked either being of any use for Covid-19, not one but several articles”
Orac has “debunked” anything that goes against the drug industry narratives. I can always predict what Orac’s position will be on any medical controversy.
And every highly qualified MD or scientist who goes against an official narrative is suddenly no longer qualified.
@ Indie Rebel
Whether Orac’s papers support a drug or not is not relevant as to any bias. First, you have to choose one of his papers and refute, backed by studies point by point his main points. Just one more example of your dishonesty. Go on, choose one of his papers on, for instance, ivermectin, and refute point by point what he writes.
Just one more example of fact your comments on the whole are just empty biased opinions without substance.
I just told you WHY he isn’t qualified. He isn’t a doctor with any training, experience, or even access to covid patients. Seriously. This is getting tedious.
People like you seem to think just because he’s a doctor who is saying what you want to hear he knows something you don’t, other doctors don’t, and should be afforded special audience. He might know even LESS than you do about covid.
If I want to know about the latest and greatest ARNI drug I will call a cardiologist…just not him-he might ask me what that drug does.
Actually there is no evidence that HCQ and ivermectin works against COVID 19. Actually, Orac’s position is predictable.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“Peter McCullough is one of the founders of a doctors group, only a few hundred members, who don’t believe HIV causes AIDS”
The official standard story is that HIV is the ONLY cause of AIDS. There are now good reasons to doubt that. Another one of Fauci’s great victories for the drug industry — toxic drugs needed for life, that never cure.
Your conspicuous failure to note any is duly noted.
At this rate I’m going to have to dig out my Very Special troll bingo card. This isn’t just a time warp, it’s a best hits cassette!
I should be glad that at least you don’t deny that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS…
What do you think are the other causes of AIDS?
So what is your cure to AIDS ? HAART actually works, it prevents AIDS. It actually prevents infection,if taken as PrEP.
Actually activists of ACT-UP convinced NIH to develop AIDS treatments. They,of course, protested the price.
@MedicalYeti
“Every doctor I have met who has some whackadoodle ideas about the pandemic is, without execption, some specialist who has NEVER taken care of a single covid patient.”
Mccullough has been treating covid patients since the beginning of the pandemic. He knows a heck of a lot more about it than Orac.
PROVE IT. I bet I see more covid patients in one day than he’s ever seen in person. PROVE ME WRONG. Enough bullshit. Put up or shut up.
Oh, good — there’s no asymptomatic transmission, then.
Sorry, Gerg.
@JustaTech
“You yourself said that thimerosal was removed from pediatric vaccines.”
I never said that. It was not removed from flu vaccines.
“You know what does cause brain damage? Infectious diseases.”
Oh really? Any old infectious disease causes brain damage? That’s why we all need a flu vaccine every year? To prevent brain damage?
I have to stop expecting vax pushers to make sense.
A. Yes, influenza can, in some circumstances, cause brain damage, though it is more likely to damage other things.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC2082798/
B. Note that you are pretty much giving up on pretending you are not anti-vaccine.
C. “Vax pushers” – you promoters of preventing diseases, you! How dare you! Why do anti-vaccine activists think that accusing people of promoting vaccines that save lives and prevent harms is an insult?
@ Indie Rebel
As Dorit gave URL to, flu can cause encephalitis; but main risk is secondary bacterial pneumonia and sometimes viral pneumonia. And with rise of antibiotic resistant infections, especially bacteria responsible for secondary pneumonias, risk of death or serious permanent lung damage is real AND, of course, just being hospitalized and suffering and risk of nosocomial infections (exposure to infectious agents in hospital).
You just keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself!
There is one vaccination on normal childhood vaccination schedules that’s primarily there to prevent brain injuries caused by the disease.
Actually list of vaccine ingredients is available:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/additives.htm
Thimerosal is only in multi dose vials of flu vaccine.
So question remains: thimerosal was removed from vaccines, and autism rates went up. How do you explain that ?
@Dorit Reiss
“Vax pushers” – you promoters of preventing diseases, you! How dare you! Why do anti-vaccine activists think that accusing people of promoting vaccines that save lives and prevent harms is an insult?”
As I said in my first comment, Gorski thinks there are only two extremes — everyone is either all for all vaccines, the more the better, or they are all against all vaccines.
You have the same problem. There is an inability to look at subtleties, to notice that things are seldom either all this or all that. You can’t see any motivation by the drug industry to push more vaccines than are necessary, or to deny that too many of certain vaccines might sometimes cause harm.
One more time, that is, quite clearly, untrue, and you know it’s untrue (given how many times it’s been pointed out to you that it’s untrue), which means you are lying. Portraying science communicators as viewing things as a false dichotomy like this, however, is a very old antivaccine trope. It’s useful to antivaxxers because it lets them portray themselves as the poor, put-upon “reasonable middle ground,” as opposed to pro-vaccine zealots. Seriously, it’s not as though I haven’t been dealing with this ridiculous trope since I started blogging in 2004. It bores me now, as does your lack of imagination in your attacks.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “The official standard story is that HIV is the ONLY cause of AIDS. There are now good reasons to doubt that. Another one of Fauci’s great victories for the drug industry — toxic drugs needed for life, that never cure.”
NOPE! The overwhelming evidence, including electonmicrophotos of HIV entering cells, including genome sequencing finding latent HIV, including overwhelming evidence how HIV attaches to and destroy CD 4 cells, that is type of T-Cell, which ones below level in blood opens person up to multiple different illnesses.
Obviously you have proven you are a SHILL for RFK. The anti-retrovirals, most are nucleoside analogues, have prolonged lives, some more than 20 years, lives that without would have been lost long ago despite RFKs bullshit.
You write: “Mccullough has been treating covid patients since the beginning of the pandemic. He knows a heck of a lot more about it than Orac.”
And what do you base this on, Peter McCullough’s say so? Has he presented lab validated evidence that the patients had covid-19? Has he presented verifiable evidence of which stage in the disease they were at. And, maybe Orac hasn’t treated Covid patients; but he has done a thorough review of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and he works at a major hospital where I’m sure they have treated tons of covid patients, so highly likely he knows doctors who are treating them, etc. Just as with claims that chelation therapy worked with Autism, etc. people can claim whatever they want. And you believe those who confirm your biases. As I already wrote, no indication you have any knowledge of immunology, microbiology, etc.
And I wonder. I assume you are much younger than me, so, don’t you have a job? How do you find so much time during the day to post comments?
Indie: “It (thimerosal) was not removed from flu vaccines.”
Wrong.
Commonly used formulations of flu vaccine are single dose, and don’t contain thimerosal. It’s only multidose vials of flu vaccine that still contain a minute amount of thimerosal preservative, because repeatedly introducing a needle into a vial, even with careful sterile technique, poses a risk of bacterial contamination which thimerosal prevents.
I can’t recall the last time I got a flu shot from a multidose vial.
No doubt Indie will blithely ignore this correction (as he has in other instances) and continue to spread misinformation.
If you want numbers, 87% in 2021-2022 will be thimerosal free, and that reflects what I’ve seen in previous years. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaxsupply.htm
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/vaxsupply.htm
@ Dangerous Bacon
I actually never thought about it, whether my annual flu vaccine had thimerosal or not, given the minuscule amount in multi-vial containers; but now you mention it, at least the past years when I line up for flu vaccine, separate syringes on table, so probably single dose. ?
McCollough, Malone, Risch and a few others ( Rose) might indeed have reasonable credentials but like other mavericks ( Montagnier) stray from consensus science, going their own way. One telling characteristic of these contrarians is that they appear with well known alt med advocates who are even further away from SBM: I hear them at the despicable sinkholes of unreason that I frequent- rather intrepidly I might add, in order to spare readers the needless suffering of hearing interminable mindless ranting and railing to which I am curiously enough, quite immune. The aforementioned have appeared as guests of Null, Adams, Bigtree and spell out detailed but outre analyses of Covid detection, vaccination and treatment which is then regurgitated by the hosts to their followers.
If they really were concerned physicians/ scientists would they assist charlatans who misinform and disinform their audiences as a matter of course ? If they are so intelligent wouldn’t they be able to tell that they are being used by pseudoscientists in order to appear more mainstream and SB? Hiv/ aids denialism, right wing conspiracy mongering and crying “Nazi” at PH workers are not good looks.
Denice said, “I hear them at the despicable sinkholes of unreason that I frequent- rather intrepidly I might add, in order to spare readers the needless suffering of hearing interminable mindless ranting and railing to which I am curiously enough, quite immune.”
And I, for one, am most appreciative of your efforts and look forward to your posts giving a synopsis of the latest and greatest lunacy circulating in Kooksville.
Reading these loon’s droolings is very painful to me so your sacrifice is not in vain.
Thanks for your efforts, Denice.
Grazie mille.
@Denice Walter
“McCollough, Malone, Risch and a few others ( Rose) might indeed have reasonable credentials but like other mavericks ( Montagnier) stray from consensus science, going their own way.”
Your mistake is in thinking the mainstream consensus is always correct. Most people are basically followers and have no trouble marching in line, throughout their careers. They don’t even notice logical and scientific mistakes made by those they respect.
Then there are experts who are not natural followers, who notice when beliefs seem irrational or lacking evidence. I have been searching for, and gradually finding, these experts throughout the pandemic. And for decades before that, it has been one of my life quests.
These renegade experts get sidelined by the mainstream, and are only welcomed by what you consider the fringe. Then you label them wayward kooks who for some strange reason went off the rails.
But the reality is, these people are the true scientists, the creative thinkers, the ones who can’t be happy marching in line.
How many of your consensus upholders ever had an original thought? How many made important discoveries? The renegade experts you despise so much have all had brilliant careers and have made a difference. No they didn’t suddenly go nuts. They ran into a consensus that does not make sense, and they could not help noticing.
Those who march in line will always be the majority, will always fight viciously against any dissenters. Until or unless they are vindicated by evidence as, for example, Einstein was.
@ Indie Rebel
“Your mistake is in thinking the mainstream consensus is always correct. Most people are basically followers and have no trouble marching in line, throughout their careers. They don’t even notice logical and scientific mistakes made by those they respect.”
Like the logical and scientific mistakes scientists made on evolutionary theory, not realising that Darwin was wrong ??
“…these people are the true scientists, the creative thinkers, the ones who can’t be happy marching in line.”
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
-Carl Sagan
They laughed at Columbus
And they were right. He miscalculated the diameter of the Earth. He and his crew would have died if he had not accidentally run into an island he did not know existed.
@John
Sometimes it better to be lucky than to be good.
They of course laugh people who try to build perpetuum mobile or square the circle. Not to mention Deutsche Physik, Trofim Lysenko or Welteis. These are of course less known than Bozo
There is a story about Groucho Marx and a seer:
Seer: I can tell you everything, just everything
Groucho: What is the capital of North Dakota
Perhaps using comedians this way is not fair
“Sometimes it better to be lucky than to be good”
It is said that you learn as much from failure as you do from success.
@Number
I don’t know, Oscar Wilde said that ‘Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes’ and George Bernard Shaw said, ‘We learn from experience that men never learn anything from experience.’
So I’m not optimistic.
Man, you’ve got to have to try hard to “be” this stupid.
You’ve already lost this one en passant.
Why do you think that everyone disagreeing with mainstream is autoimatical right ? You should give some evidence, even in this case,
“How many of your consensus upholders ever had an original thought? How many made important discoveries?”
Rudolf Weigl – invented the first effective typhus vaccine while supporting and providing shelter for the Polish resistance during WWII.
Ludwik Fleck – developed a different typhus vaccine while interned at Auschwitz, where he and his assistants not only managed to vaccinated the other people of the camp, but also sabotaged the vaccine that was sent out to Nazi soldiers. After the war he became a noted philosopher of science.
There, two men working on a single disease at a single time in generally the same place. The upheld the consensus of things like germ theory and did great and innovative science. With a team.
I meant to say — vindicated by hard evidence that for whatever reason the mainstream consensus followers could not ignore. Much more likely in physics than in medicine.
This of course happens all the time. Key word is “hard evidence”. Conspiracy theories are not hard eveuidence.
For every conversation, there is an XKCD.
https://xkcd.com/1520/
@MedicalYeti
Are you kidding? McCullough is one of the foremost covid doctors.
@ Indie Rebel
NO, HE IS NOT! ! !
What do you base your belief about him on? What he claims???
@Indie This is hilarious. I hope this is an act.
@F68.10
“Like the logical and scientific mistakes scientists made on evolutionary theory, not realising that Darwin was wrong ??”
Darwin was not arrogant or dogmatic. That came later, when the Modern Synthesis was seized on as the last word on evolution.
@ Indie Rebel
“Darwin was not arrogant or dogmatic. That came later, when the Modern Synthesis was seized on as the last word on evolution.”
After whitewashing your denialism of evolutionary theory by paying lip service to Darwin, you’re now into AIDS denialism ?
BTW, are you aware that these “HIV is not the cause of AIDS” talking points were essentially used to keep on claiming that sodomy was the real problem ? That the virus was less of a problem than sodomy itself ?
Do you sometimes take the bother to contextualise denialism and understand what precisely makes it dangerous and not exactly a blame game where you can afford to get a kick out of vilifying atheists and “materialists” ?
I did a little reading around. Wondering if there was another big theory relating to HIV and AIDS but it seemed as you say.
It’s all, if you don’t take drugs and don’t have anal sex and don’t have Haemophilia, you’ll be fine. Especially if you take a lot of vitamins and supplements or garlic and African potato.
Maverick scientists have done a bang up job of proving their hypotheses so far.
Actually Darwin agreed with you. He did think that acquired characterics are inheritable. This was proven wrong, not natural selection.
@ Indie Rebel
History has shown that of the thousands of “dissenters” only a minuscule number actually were right. On the other hand, consensus scientists were usually right. You claim you have been searching for many years. First, what basic knowledge of science do you have to even decide who is “right” and who is “wrong?” Your beliefs???
So, from a PhD in cognitive psychology to devoting tons of time and energy to evolution to mastering the basics, e.g., immunology, microbiology, history and current status of infectious diseases, chemistry, i.e., understanding for instance the difference between methymercury and ethylmercury, understanding just everything. Wow! Are you a member of Mensa, club for geniuses? Or just a bullshitter who posts beliefs that you don’t even try to defend. Take just one of the people you mentioned and explain their positions and any experimental/research evidence that they base it on, including details of actual methodology used. And then if any replications have occurred.
Based on your BELIEF system, anyone who conforms to what you chose to believe must be right. Yikes! As I’ve said, you really are STUPID. STUPID because you can’t defend your position. STUPID because you either don’t understand what I and others write or ignore it without attempting to rationally address it. And on and on we go.
I’ll bet if you had lived over 100 years ago you would have defended Piltdown Man for ever!
@Dangerous Bacon
“But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”
I never said, or implied, that all who are laughed at (or despised or cancelled) are geniuses. But I have seen enough examples in my life of how creative dissenters are mobbed.
I also saw the following instinct first hand as a graduate student. At the first lab meeting, my research advisor said “In this lab, we believe …”
And it didn’t happen to be what I believed. It didn’t feel like what I thought higher education is supposed to be about — adventurous wondering and questioning and debating. And this is a university with a high ranking. I think the following instinct can be even stronger in more prestigious environments. I had been through another graduate program in a small private college, where thinking was acceptable.
@ Indie Rebel
“I never said, or implied, that all who are laughed at (or despised or cancelled) are geniuses. But I have seen enough examples in my life of how creative dissenters are mobbed.”
Yeah. OK. I’ve got a clue or two as to how you can get punched into solitary confinement for disagreeing with an authority figure like a doctor.
I’m also not entirely fascinated by the kind of bullshitters who have official positions. In some humanities department, mostly. I also do not agree with quite a lot of things I see in my own domain.
And… so what ?
That doesn’t justify in any way to positions you promote.
In fact, the way to defend “persecuted geniuses” is to even more tighten the expectations in terms of rationality so as to get the less competent people that are in their way fired.
Which is why we should beat cranks much like we beat dead horses: with fanatical devotion. Till they ask for their teeth back.
Which will then pave the way for “persecuted geniuses” to take over.
Gee… I’m mighty fed up with these pile of mental dung atop other pile of mental dungs. You’ve got everything wrong and your moral compass is completely upside down.
FTFY.
I suspect they said something like “In this lab, we believe in lab safety.”
@F68.10
“BTW, are you aware that these “HIV is not the cause of AIDS” talking points were essentially used to keep on claiming that sodomy was the real problem ? That the virus was less of a problem than sodomy itself ?”
I NEVER said any of that. I said there are many who now believe HIV is NOT the ONLY cause of AIDS. AIDS is obviously a communicable disease.
Either/or thinking sure is popular at this blog.
@ Indie Rebel
“Either/or thinking sure is popular at this blog.”
Extremely popular. You may find a very interesting treatment of logical disjunction in part 2 of William of Ockham’s 1323 Summa Logicae, section 32 and 33. You can check out the latin to english translation by Freddoso and Schuurman published in 1980 at St. Augustine’s Press for details.
I’m a big fan of either / or thinking. Following in the footsteps of big Medieval Christian thinkers. Big big fan.
I’ll light a candle for them. Thank you for reminding me of my worshipping duties.
“I NEVER said any of that. I said there are many who now believe HIV is NOT the ONLY cause of AIDS. AIDS is obviously a communicable disease.”
It’s a communicable disease. But not by a virus. Only by penises or needles…
You indeed never said anything of that. For sure.
I’m just amazed at how well you’re buying into the BS of people who do tend to mask their obsessions behind pseudo-science.
You’re a genuine object of study.
And a genuine piece of work.
I imagine you thought that would fly under the radar.
@F68.10
“In fact, the way to defend “persecuted geniuses” is to even more tighten the expectations in terms of rationality so as to get the less competent people that are in their way fired.
Which is why we should beat cranks much like we beat dead horses: with fanatical devotion. Till they ask for their teeth back.”
Maybe you think that’s what you’re doing, but in reality you (Orac and followers) are fighting like mad to maintain the status quo. Yes there are quacks and fakes. But Orac’s target isn’t just quacks and fakes, it is ALL dissenters from the mainstream consensus, on any medical controversy. For him, you, ALL dissenters from the consensus are stupid and/or evil. That is typical political extremist thinking. Everyone on the “other” side is bad, wrong, idiotic. There is no attempt, ever, to understand the other side, to see if maybe some of what they say, even a little of it, could be true.
That is your task, which you haven’t even been failing at — your output is merely concentrated sniveling.
“There is no attempt, ever, to understand the other side, to see if maybe some of what they say, even a little of it, could be true”
I’m sure you tell yourself this every day to get those ruby slippers to work. In reality, your idea of an “attempt to understand the other side” is one that leads to a change of opinion. Any attempt to understand the other side, concluding that it is unmitigated rubbish, is obviously because they didn’t try hard enough. Funnily enough, this is the excuse a lot of alt med people have used when the latest crystal healing vibration machine doesn’t cure cancer.
For someone who claims a PhD in Cognitive Thinking, you have no awareness of your own methods of understanding and knowledge limitations at all.
“some of what they say, even a little of it, could be true”.
If they really wanted to advance scientific knowledge then they would pick the bits of any original research that they had good evidence for and publish that instead. They would get more respect, more influence and more chances of expanding the work in the direction that they want to go. Not a fast enough route to money and fame though. I can understand the money but I’d rather have the respect of my peer group than the respect of a bunch of people who have no understanding of what I do.
So. We’re “fighting for the status quo.”
.
In a sense you could be right:
.
Fighting for a system in which evidence outweighs assertion? Guilty
Fighting for statistical rigor in scientific studies? You got me.
Fighting for a system in which demonstrated educational background and competence are valued more than internet searches? I guess you caught us red-handed on that one.
Fighting for a system in which one searches for evidence which, when found, can either support or undermine our hypothesis, rather than cherry picking items to support our preconceptions? Guilty.
Fighting for a system in which arguments are addressed directly, rather than reframed in dishonest ways? Yep, we’re not too fond of your army of straw men.
I must retire to my fainting couch to contemplate the horror.
/s/
@ Indie Rebel
“Maybe you think that’s what you’re doing, but in reality you (Orac and followers) are fighting like mad to maintain the status quo.”
Nope. We merely need to guarantee that criticism is not toothless. If criticism is toothless, science is dead. So, yeah, we do need to make sure that bad actions have consequence. When a company is inefficient, it dies. If people like Raoult are so hard to topple, it’s because people like Orac are not nearly virulent enough.
This is not maintain a status quo. It’s guaranteeing that science does function. And does discriminate. Does take a stand. Does not take refuge in immature analogies like “I like vanilla, you like chocolate ? Fine, all truths are equally valid.” When lives are at stake, not taking a stand is even more criminal than being mistaken in good faith and adogmatically. So, yes, this is all about defending science, and defending the idea that science should not be toothless.
“Yes there are quacks and fakes. But Orac’s target isn’t just quacks and fakes, it is ALL dissenters from the mainstream consensus, on any medical controversy.”
I have witnessed Orac taking a stand on some medical issues where medical doctors mistake the authority that their privileged statues imbues themselves with for the scientific consensus. Inertia is not scientific consensus, and I at times have witnessed Orac making this point black on white towards medical doctors who do not fit the typical portrait of the crank.
So, no, I have to disagree. Orac hasn’t been a sheepish follower of consensus.
But with the pandemic, there is no need to discuss such subtle points anymore given the mass hysteria we are witnessing. Cranks are just everywhere nowadays, and there is no point wasting time engaging in an epistemological dissection of Nicholas of Cusa with the average antivaxxer on the street agressively demonstrating. Such as they do every saturday around here. Illegally.
We should first think of putting down all these people and all these cranks.
And then only we’ll have subtle and sophisticated discussion with science deniers of all kind.
We should not get confused about the tempo.
Alright, let’s assume that at least one of the contrarians is currently busy assembling data that will eventually overturn most of what consensus believes about Covid or about one important issue: would he or she then appear at websites/ broadcasts that are well known for pseudoscience and conspiracy mongering about health, politics and social issues? They could instead gather their evidence and submit it to multiple periodicals, including pay-to-play journals and internet self-publishing. They could find other avenues to publicise their findings, including news outlets. Shouldn’t they be correctly suspicious of the places I mention? If someone asked me to appear on a broadcast/ podcast or to write something for a website , you can be sure that I’d do a thorough search on the person inviting me: all of the places I mentioned signal very obvious warning signs of poor judgment, fear mongering and health misinformation as well as pretense, self aggrandisement and salesmanship. shouldn’t a scientist, physician or any well-educated person be able to spot those obvious signs?
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “Maybe you think that’s what you’re doing, but in reality you (Orac and followers) are fighting like mad to maintain the status quo. Yes there are quacks and fakes. But Orac’s target isn’t just quacks and fakes, it is ALL dissenters from the mainstream consensus, on any medical controversy. For him, you, ALL dissenters from the consensus are stupid and/or evil. That is typical political extremist thinking. Everyone on the “other” side is bad, wrong, idiotic. There is no attempt, ever, to understand the other side, to see if maybe some of what they say, even a little of it, could be true.”
I asked once before, do you know what the psychological defense mechanism of projection is? Basically, denying ones own flaws and projecting them on to others. Well, the above statement fits you perfectly. Neither I nor Orac reject out of hand research that goes against the grain; but we do look at its methodology carefully and if other research corroborates it. It is you who started by claiming Orac rejected advice for healthier diets and exercise. Nope, he simply, as have I, pointed out that such is good; but will NOT guarantee protections against some infections. No matter how healthy an individual is, if a microbe invades their bodies, and their immune system does NOT recognize, some microbes can kill or disable before ones immune system kicks in, that is, 10 – 14 days for the adaptive immune system, antibodies and T-cells, to reach strength. However, for some microbes that take longer to do their damage, then the healthier we are the better chance we have. Not what you wrote in your first post. It is you who sees things in dichotomies. It is you who leaps at anything dissenter, without including discussion of their methodology, who fits your SICK belief system, including believing RFK makes any valid points. Well, actually, as the old saying goes: Even a broken clock gets the time right twice daily and if I write a review of his book I will point out the few things he was right about; but outweighed by 95% of what he wrote that is just plain WRONG!
Hey remember when the vaxxers claimed South Korea was the way to handle the Covid.
“S. Korea to reduce private gathering size to 4, restore 9 p.m. business curfew: PM”
en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20211216001452315?section=national/politics
worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/south-korea/
And Sweden was the dog to be kick to the curb, because they didn’t mask or lock down or close schools?
worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/sweden/
Joel
Consensus science is usually right, “History has shown that of the thousands of “dissenters” only a minuscule number actually were right.”
Let see.
The earth is flat
the Earth is carried through space on the back of a giant turtle
The earth is the center of the universe.
Blood letting is a cure.
Mars has ‘canals”
Overpopulation would result in famine (when the earth population was only 4 billion people, when that consensus was reached)
We will run out of oil by 2000.
Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction
Plum pudding model
Rutherford planetary model
…..
the list could go on.
And we have to invent a thing called “dark matter” to make that consensus work.
or Alex Dessler who disproved consensus about electric currents
You may want to talk to Giordano Bruno about the earth centrism consensus.
“If its consensus its not science”
“No amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory, but a single experiment could disprove one”
Very dishonest of you, Kay. Scientists NEVER believed the Earth was flat. In fact, it was a scientist named Eratosthenes who confirmed the Earth was round over two millenia ago. As for the fictitious WMDs, it was the politicians who lied, not the scientists and intelligence officers.
You are making bad faith arguments.
Look who’s back. I’m beginning to think IR, Greg, and KW are all emanating from the fetid, dimly-lit basement. By the congratulatory baloney that goes on between them, it seems a fair to middling proposition.
Apart from mixing in politics, creation myths and projections based on complex systems, we should thank Kay.
Scientists keep being accused of refusing to accept new theories and oppressing minority views.
Kay, you’ve just demonstrated that science is always changing as new data and new understandings arrive. From the very earliest humans, trying to make sense of the world with whatever observations they could make with the human eye and primitive technology, to the advent of electron microscope and the James Webb space Telescope.
Thanks again Kay. You’ve just shown how science is the only valid way to learn more about the universe we live in.
Earth is flat or carried by turtle was religious claims,
Mars canals, overpopulation claims, resourse depletion, plum pudding model and Bohr atomic model were never consensus.
Saddam is too riduculous to cemment,
Of course the point is that if something is consensus, there must very good evidence for it. There were of course no evidence for blood letting, This was tradiotional faiuth based medicine,
@ Kaye West
“You may want to talk to Giordano Bruno about the earth centrism consensus.”
Why not ? We may indeed talk about the impact of religion on science.
In particular, we may talk about Georg von Peuerbach. Interesting dude, whose story shows the copernician system in the making. You know… computing sine tables the arab way and doing the real grunt work… But we may also talk about Nicolas of Cusa and his theory of Absolute Maximum and manifestation of reality as the unfolding of the coincidence of opposites, which had as a metaphysical consequence Bruno’s doctrine of a centerless universe, already in Nicolas of Cues’ texts. I’m sure you’re very much aware of all that history, and of how consensus was engineered at the time, given that Nicolas of Cusa was a cardinal… and all this mess with the hussites and the turks… but you know all that all too well, don’t you ?
Now, bottom line:
Bruno never advocated superstition. He was deep into the hermetic renaissance of his time, for sure, with neoplatonician World-Soul as the center of controversy among his sect and peers. But that was, in fact, a step away from dogmatism.
The genuine overturning of catholic dogmatism was achieved when the notion of scientific method started germing. With people like Descartes. Bruno had little to do with the advent of “method”.
What people like you promote, on the other hand, is superstition, lack of rigour and doing away with method, which is our only safeguard against going back to the good old days where Bruno was burnt at the stake.
Thank you very much, but, no, thank you.
You people are no heirs to Bruno. Far from it.
You’re paving the way for precisely what he opposed.
OK, I’ll have a go. Which of the these two countries had better outcomes in managing COVID-19:
S. Korea: 10,744 cases/million, 89 deaths/million
Sweden: 122,743 cases/million, 1,491 deaths/million
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
You did know that comparing absolute numbers of cases or deaths between countries whose populations differ by a factor of about five was not a valid comparison, didn’t you?
Hi, Kay, now that you’re posting in this topic again, are you going to get back to how well Sweden is handling COVID infections as compared to South Korea?
∗snort∗
You’re not good at bluffing, Kay, although just imagining you scurrying around to cipher up that list is good for a wholesome laugh. It’s straight-up Wile E. Kayote.
Speaking of Africa and COVID, here’s a news article from the Times Live website.
93% of recent Covid-19 deaths either unvaxxed or partly vaccinated: NICD
“Most Covid-19 patients who died in SA hospitals since mid-November were unvaccinated or partly vaccinated.
National Institute for Communicable Diseases (NICD) public health specialist Dr Waasila Jassat said data on the 400 patients who died was incomplete, but about 93% were not fully vaccinated.”
Indie: “That is typical political extremist thinking. Everyone on the “other” side is bad, wrong, idiotic”
That’s rich, coming from a poster who insists that everyone here who disagrees with him is an atheist and/or “materialist”.
When do we get to hear the myriad causes of AIDS besides HIV?
@David
“What do you think are the other causes of AIDS?”
As far as I know, no one has figured that out. Something else in the blood, in addition to HIV. When they found that all, or most, AIDS patients had HIV in their blood, it was hastily decided HIV must be the only cause.
Then an aborted trial of AZT made them decide that killing HIV with a toxic drug would be the cure. After that, less toxic drugs were compared favorably to AZT.
In my opinion, the toxic drugs kill infections associated with AIDS, and that is why they have some benefit. But killing HIV will never cure AIDS. And we know that so far it hasn’t, the excuse being that HIV mutates. Well maybe it’s because something else is really causing the syndrome.
Montagnier was one of the discoverers of HIV, and he doesn’t think it explains AIDS. But he’s a dissenter from official medical narratives, so you will discount anything he says.
So you think that there is another cause or do you doubt HIV?
What AZT trial are you talking about?
It seems that there are so many things for us to thank Kary Mullis for.
@ Indie Rebel
Did you know that AZT is still used in combination with other drugs for AIDS? Almost all medicines can be toxic; but question is do they benefit greater than harm. Despite your shilling for RFK, AZT did do some good when it was the only drug available; but HIV mutates rapidly and . . .
You write: “n my opinion, the toxic drugs kill infections associated with AIDS, and that is why they have some benefit. But killing HIV will never cure AIDS.”
In your “opinion.” Well, most HIV drugs do one of the following:
1. Prevent or slow HIV replication
2. Prevent integrase enzyme, so HIV can’t enter cells
3. Prevent proteases, so HIV can’t reassemble, etc
But there are also drugs to treat specific disorders, e.g., Kaposi’s sarcoma.
So, wrong again, not one or the other. The antiretroviral drugs, despite what you choose to believe, have kept some people alive who would have died for decades.
There is overwhelming evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Doesn’t mean that a few, much smaller number, of people who have some of the AIDS like symptoms can’t be caused by something else. Pneumonia is caused by viruses, bacteria, protozoa, and toxins. But your belief clearly indicates you believe that a large number of AIDS cases are not from HIV and the research, literally 100s of thousands of papers show you to be an idiot. We have the genome of HIV. We have sequencing of HIV that has entered the human genome. We have electron microscopic photos of HIV entering cells. We know how reverse transcriptase works. We have good science on how HIV destroys CD4 cells, which are t-cells that coordinate antibodies and killer t-cells, so that once they are gone, our bodies are open to just about anything.
You are either a shill for RFK or just some sick SOB who comments, knowing few to none will believe you; but just to irritate people. Or just plain STUPID!
As usual-you don’t understand. Montagnier is acknowledging that AIDS, the syndrome, is not due to HIV alone. HIV kills CD4+ cells. PERIOD. I watch in near real time as those cells return after I start HAART. I also watch as they aids-defining illnesses disappear. The first step is always to treat the actual virus because immunity will not recover until we do.
The actual HIV viral infection itself has never killed anyone. PJP pneumonia, various opportunistic meningitis bugs, and other things our immune system usually laughs at kill HIV patients. Not buttplay, not IV drugs, not whatever other baloney you come up with in your fever dreams. Some of those things spread the virus pretty efficiently. AGAIN: You can’t have it both ways.
“As far as I know, no one has figured that out. Something else in the blood, in addition to HIV. When they found that all, or most, AIDS patients had HIV in their blood, it was hastily decided HIV must be the only cause.”
I love the fact that Indies first statement was that there was GOOD reason to believe that HIV isn’t the sole cause of AIDS.
Flash in the pan. I is disappoint.
As someone who used to work on an HIV vaccine, this specific statement by IR gets my goat more than the rest.
As if going on 40 years of research by scientists all over the world wouldn’t have noticed if more than HIV was necessary for AIDS. Like, does IR really think that the process of science is that blinkered?
Ugh.
Do you know that PrEP prevents HIV infection ?
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/basics/prep.html
Interesting thing is that you rail against consensus, but take words of authority figures granted. Strange form of critical thinking.
Trial had 1 deaths in AZT group, 19 in placebo. It would have been unethical to continue giving placebo. Do not trust Robert Kennedy Jr,he always lies,
@ Kay Wests
Welcome back. I always enjoy your stupid comments.
So, you write: Consensus science is usually right, “History has shown that of the thousands of “dissenters” only a minuscule number actually were right.”
Let see.
“The earth is flat the Earth is carried through space on the back of a giant turtle The earth is the center of the universe. Blood letting is a cure. Mars has ‘canals” Overpopulation would result in famine (when the earth population was only 4 billion people, when that consensus was reached) We will run out of oil by 2000. Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction Plum pudding model Rutherford planetary model”
I guess you don’t understand that ““The earth is flat the Earth is carried through space on the back of a giant turtle The earth is the center of the universe. Blood letting is a cure”
All, long before “science” as defined today even existed. The world was dominated by religious beliefs!
As for “Mars has ‘canal’, was a reasonable assumption based on what we could see with telescopes, etc; but show me where scientists fought tooth and nail against rejecting once new methods refuted?
As for “overpopulation” resulting in famine; the “consensus” didn’t reject new agricultural methods, simply stated the obvious that without new ways of obtaining foods would lead to a crisis and if you look at various TV documentaries on this, clear that from the gitgo there were visionary people trying to develop new agricultural technique. By the way, even if we solve the food problem, I personally would prefer a world with some nature left, not just megacities. And, by the way, probably one fourth of world’s population malnourished today. But consensus? Nope. In fact, if we were to all become vegetarians and distribute food equitably world would be healthier. We cut down rainforests to grow beef. We have huge numbers of pigs and chickens which increase risks of flu epidemics. It takes a lot more water and a lot more land to grow livestock than vegetables in order to get the same level of protein, etc.
I don’t remember a consensus claiming we will run out of oil; but, again, if there was a consensus, it didn’t fight against new methods of extracting oil, it was open to change.
As for Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, just how STUPID are you? Numerous sources criticized, including UN Weapons inspectors rejected this and newspaper columnists, etc. This wasn’t a scientific consensus; but a political by the Bush administration looking for an excuse to go to war. Really, just how STUPID are you?
As for “the Rutherford planetary model” of the atom, no consensus in any way, shape, or form tried to stop others. And part of the model still stands up today, namely that the nucleus is the dense, central portion of the atom. So, he discovered the nucleus. After Rutherford’s discovery, scientists started to realise that the atom is not ultimately a single particle, but is made up of far smaller subatomic particles. Subsequent research determined the exact atomic structure.” Rutherford’s model didn’t lead to a rigid scientific consensus; but actually stimulated new research.
As for Bruno, why don’t you go back to the ancient Greeks.
And you write: ““If its consensus its not science”
“No amount of experiments could ever prove a scientific theory, but a single experiment could disprove one”
No, consensus is not science; but science leads to consensus; but science doesn’t close the door. Science is always open to new research; however, not one single experiment. As I’ve explained and morons like you don’t understand, even the best methodologically sound research can result in errors because of uncontrolled factors, which is why when the research of some research goes against what has been found previously, other scientists double check the methodology and some try to replicate it. With vaccines, after well-done placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials, there will be further research on various subgroups, various nations following up with recording of possible adverse events, etc.
In fact, for medicine, including vaccines, only since World War II has an accepted method of science been established. Physics is different. They can literally control everything in labs and, yet, still problems. PBS Nova has an excellent program that gives an example, Particle Unknown.
As with Indie Rebel you see things in dichotomies, misinterpret things, etc. However, despite RFK Jrs book including reference to papers that refute the germ theory of disease and despite the stupid dichotomy, as brought up by Indie Rebel, that if someone supports science, including vaccines, then they reject healthy diets and exercise, the real world, outside your warped, unscientific, irrational, stupidity, doesn’t work that way. I know you reject climate change; but I’ve been following it since 1980s and, though nothing is written in stone, the overwhelming evidence supports it and the deniers get lots of their info either directly or indirectly from the fossil fuel industry. Golly gee, short term profit trumps all.
THANKS FOR BEGINNING MY DAY WITH A BIT OF STUPID AMUSEMENT. YEP, LETS GO BACK CENTURIES TO FIND CONSENSUS BASED ON ONLY A SMALL FEW AND BEFORE SCIENCE OF TODAY EVEN EXISTED. AND, GIVEN THE SCIENCE METHODOLOGY OF TODAY, THE NUMBER OF PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS, THE LARGE NUMBER OF SCIENTISTS, IF SOMETHING LEADS TO MULTIPLE STUDIES THAT CONFIRM THEN CHANCES OF REJECTING MINUSCULE. BUT NEW RESEARCH QUESTIONED; BUT NOT REJECTED AUTOMATICALLY. AS I’VE WRITTEN, OVERWHELMING RESEARCH SHOWS BENEFIT OF COVID VACCINES, PAPERS PRODUCED NOT JUST BY PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY; BUT VARIOUS NATION’S DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, ETC. AND NOPE, NOTHING IS WITHOUT SOME RISK, SO A MINUSCULE FEW HAVE BEEN HARMED BY THE VACCINES; BUT SEATBELTS ONLY REDUCE RISK OF DEATH AND SERIOUS INJURY BY ABOUT 50% AND HAVE RESULTED IN A COUPLE OF DEATHS WHEN BELT TWISTED AND SLICED INTO ABDOMEN AND A NUMBER OF CASES OF RUPTURED BLADDERS AND BRUISED KIDNEYS; BUT THE BENEFIT TO HARM RATIO IS EXPONENTIAL.
@David
“So you think that there is another cause or do you doubt HIV?”
I have no idea what the cause is, but I think HIV does not completely explain it. Reductionists like to grasp on to one cause, but with complex systems there can be multiple causes.
“What AZT trial are you talking about?”
The first HIV drug trial. It was cut short because they decided AZT worked.
“It seems that there are so many things for us to thank Kary Mullis for.”
He was a typical dissenter, and the status quo upholders probably discount everything he ever said, doesn’t matter that he was brilliant.
I don’t want to ‘grasp on to one cause’, so if you know something else, that share. And if you don’t, that fine.
Mullis was blinded by his ‘brilliance’. It’s a shame he wasn’t as ‘brilliant’ as he thought he was. His work on PCR was fantastic. His understanding of virology, not so much. He is a great example of a remarkable researcher who is less reliable in fields outside his expertise.
You know that AIDS must have some other cause, but cannot say what it is., You should really do better.
You actually can stop clinical trial if the drug tested is really good, It would be unethical to give placebo if this is the case.
@Aarno Syvänen
“Actually Darwin agreed with you. He did think that acquired characterics are inheritable. This was proven wrong, not natural selection.”
Darwin was much more open minded than devout neo-Darwinists today. But Lamarck was NEVER disproven! And now there is evidence of acquired traits being inherited, via epigenetics.
You want to know how they “disproved” Lamarck’s theory? Cut the tails off successive generations of mice. And they kept on being born with tails. That was it, the final “proof.”
You say that you have evidence that acquired characterics are inheritable, but you do not say what this evidence is. Epigenetics means that phenotype is not entirely caused by genotype, it says nothing about inheritability of acquired charasterics.
Do you Lysenko in Soviet Union ? He did try to prove Lamarck right, with very bad results,
@ Indie Rebel
“Darwin was much more open minded than devout neo-Darwinists today.”
Of course. He was still confused, and in the business of acquiring evidence for a hostile audience.
Copernic and Kepler also were very open-minded. But, now, we know. There is no reason to be more “open-minded” than necessary. That’s called denialism.
But of course, we may dissect the logico-epistemic backbone of Darwin if you like. Kind of a school exercise. Then I’ll rate your performance. A+ ? Or F- ?
“But Lamarck was NEVER disproven!”
Oh. Right. And, may I ask you, what was the killer experience that should have been performed to disprove Lamarck ?
If there is none, that means Lamarck is unfalsifiable. Hence pseudo-science. Like astrology. cf. demarcation problem.
If there is, and we haven’t performed it, we are then collectively guilty.
It’s now up to you to come up with the killer experience. For Einstein, it was light bending during an eclipse. What should it be for Lamarck ?? Please tell me, Logic Incarnate…
“And now there is evidence of acquired traits being inherited, via epigenetics.”
Doesn’t tip the balance off and away from evolution by natural selection. Except in your mind. But not in reality…
“You want to know how they “disproved” Lamarck’s theory? Cut the tails off successive generations of mice. And they kept on being born with tails. That was it, the final “proof.””
Reference needed. So that we may have all the required information to debate the issue constructively.
Now. If that experience was not good enough for you, whatever it was, please enlighten us: what would be the Killer Experience that would 1. prove that Lamarck is falsifiable 2. prove that we are guilty of not having undertaken.
Expose the cover-up. We’re counting on you.
@David
“He is a great example of a remarkable researcher who is less reliable in fields outside his expertise.”
No one knows everything, no matter how brilliant. On the other hand, we should not ignore what a brilliant person says just because it differs from the official consensus. The official consensus is often wrong also. And in any case, science DEPENDS on dissent and skepticism. It’s actually amusing to see the “skeptics” at SBM never being skeptical of any official consensus. They don’t seem to be the kind of original thinkers who can see beyond the current status quo.
Mirrors are your friends, Sockie McSockerson.
We should ignore things a brilliant person says, if he or she does not give any evidence,
So if I follow your ‘logic’, we should support and believe those who go against the ‘official consensus’? Don’t you think that some regard should be given to the quality of the arguments?
HIV/AIDS denialism is not a good look in 2021 ( or ever). Wikipedia has a long detailed article about its main points, chief proselytisers and effects on different populations around the world and those who oppose it. There were especially dire consequences in the RSA when governmental officials advocated a denialist policy which changed when a new government took over… Gay men, minorities and others were unfairly ostracised in many societies because of misinformation about how the virus manifests and how it is spread.
If the virus alone is not causal then we would not be able to find any people who have none of the alleged risk factors ( drug use, “risky sex”, poor nutrition, poverty) except contact with the virus. Yet we find exactly that: health care workers without any of the purported risks who suffered needle sticks or cuts during a surgical procedure have become positive for the virus. Over time, prophylactics have been utilised to counteract the virus ( ARVs basically) after needle sticks or cuts and infected pregnant mothers can protect their children from being born with hiv by taking the appropriate meds. None of this is new news. Hiv/aids denialism is a particularly malignant form of pseudoscience because it discouraged life saving medical care and showed disregard for thesuffering whilst benefiting vitamin salesmen and contrarian so-called journalists. ( Orac covers hiv/aids denialism/ see search function)
Oh oopsie RFK, Jr. https://www.thedailybeast.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-house-party-guests-were-told-to-get-vaccinated-before-coming
Makes me wonder whether he and his family are actually vaccinated.
I was wondering if Ms Hines was a true believer or not. Good for her.
This could be a major scandal – if RFK Jr has been caught doing something reasonable, he could lose all his fans (remember how Trump backtracked after being booed for accidentally giving good advice)
@Aarno Syvänen
“You know that AIDS must have some other cause, but cannot say what it is”
I said there is a growing number of scientists who think HIV is not the only cause. That doesn’t mean they have found some other answer. Science doesn’t work like that — it is possible to doubt an existing hypothesis before you have found a better one.
“You actually can stop clinical trial if the drug tested is really good, It would be unethical to give placebo if this is the case.”
Yes of course, that’s what they did. But the advantage for the AZT group wasn’t that great, and it was short term. Now it is known that AZT is very toxic, and might have killed more than it helped, if the trial had continued.
Also, as I have already said, anti-HIV drugs can kill the infections associated with AIDS, giving the false impression that the patients are improving because the drugs kill HIV.
Ooooooh. They kill other stuff. Weird. I wonder why most of the people I diagnose with HIV are asymptomatic?
There is citation of clinical trial:
Fischl MA, Richman DD, Grieco MH, Gottlieb MS, Volberding PA, Laskin OL, Leedom JM, Groopman JE, Mildvan D, Schooley RT, et al. The efficacy of azidothymidine (AZT) in the treatment of patients with AIDS and AIDS-related complex. A double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. N Engl J Med. 1987 Jul 23;317(4):185-91. doi: 10.1056/NEJM198707233170401. PMID: 3299089.
It says that 19 died in placebo group, 1 in AZT group, That is why trial was terminated, it would have been unethical to give placebo anymore. I suggest that you check original data, and remember that Robert Kennedy Jr always lies.
@Aarno Syvänen
“Conspiracy theories are not hard eveuidence.”
Not always possible to get hard evidence in medical science. Very often it is not possible, so controversies continue for years, decades, centuries. How long did MDs think tobacco was ok before enough evidence was finally gathered? Hundreds of years. It’s kind of amazing to think about — smoking tobacco doesn’t feel good or taste good, makes you cough, makes everyone around you cough — and yet it was a fad for hundreds of years. Didn’t even dawn on modern scientists that it could be harmful until I think around the late1960s.
@ Indie Rebel
“Not always possible to get hard evidence in medical science.”
It’s always possible to make the soundest judgement on the flimsiest evidence you have.
That precisely is called “scientific method”.
That’s precisely the purpose of the “scientific method”.
The most outrageous attitude in medicine is taking cover of a controversy to back down from the scientific method and start delegitimising it.
That’s precisely why it’s important to dismantle pseudo-science and the mental attitude that foster it and protect it. Like yours.
Indie Rebel mindlessly babbled about smoking tobacco, “Didn’t even dawn on modern scientists that it could be harmful until I think around the late1960s.”
Bzzzt!
Do you ever get anything correct?
These took about a minute to debunk your laughable statement:
Cigarettes called “Coffin Nails” back in the 1800s because they were considered so healthy /sarc:
https://tobacco.harpweek.com/asp/ViewArticleText.asp?url=content%3A%2F%2Fharpweek%2Ftitle%5BHW%5D%2Fvolume%5B1896%5D%2Fissue%5B0411%5D%23%2FTEI%2E2%5B1%5D%2Ftext%5B1%5D%2Fback%5B1%5D%2Fdiv1%5B38%5D&pageIDs=%7CHW%2D1896%2D04%2D11%2D0368%7C&title=&returnUrl=http%3A%2F%2Ftobacco%2Eharpweek%2Ecom%2FHubPages%2FCommentaryPage%2Easp%3FCommentary%3DIntroduction&returnTitle=Introduction“Harper’s Weekly 04/11/1896
COFFIN NAILS.”
and
https://tobacco.harpweek.com/hubpages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=Introduction“Harper’s Weekly was, in effect, the American “newspaper of record” from soon after its start in 1857 until 1912. As early as 1858, it criticized various aspects of tobacco use, as shown by a cartoon on secondhand smoke. This website’s title—“Coffin Nails”—comes from a nineteenth century slang term for cigarettes; it was featured on April 4, 1896 in a full-page advertisement for a tobacco-addiction “cure.”
…
Here are some significant findings from this compilation:
As early as 1862, tobacco addiction was a recognized problem, and various “cures” were offered to users.
In 1867, the editor of Harper’s Weekly, George William Curtis, identified the three major health dangers of tobacco use: cancer, heart disease, and lung disease.
It was the Spanish-American War of 1898, not America’s entry into World War I in 1917, that first made cigarette smoking “manly” and led to the addiction of a generation of young servicemen.
Over a century before the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General declared that smoking causes cancer, an anti-tobacco movement was already in existence, putting forward most of the arguments used today against tobacco products.”
etc., etc.
Looks like you missed it by about 100 years or more.
.
And:
http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/citizenkane.htmlIt was common knowledge that tobacco smoking was detrimental to health as shown in this excerpt from the 1941 film Citizen Kane where Thompson is interviewing Mr. Leland (Kane’s closest friend) in the hospital/elderly care facility about Kane and Leland is begging Thompson to smuggle some cigars in to him because his doctor has forbidden them to him:
LELAND: On your way out, stop at a cigar store, will you, and send me up a couple of cigars?
THOMPSON: Sure, Mr. Leland. I’ll be glad to.
…
LELAND (to Thompson): You won’t forget, will you, about the cigars? And tell them to wrap them up to look like toothpaste, or something, or they’ll stop them at the desk. That young doctor I was telling you about, he’s got an idea he wants to keep me alive.
.
Yep… Doctors and people didn’t think tobacco smoking “could be harmful until the late 1960s”.
Oh, BTW – Welcome to alt-med, alt-facts Fantasy Island where everything stated is just made up BS and must be fact-checked… Everything.
Even in the 17th century:
A Counterblaste to Tobacco, James 1 of England, 1604.
“I said there is a growing number of scientists who think HIV is not the only cause. That doesn’t mean they have found some other answer. Science doesn’t work like that — it is possible to doubt an existing hypothesis before you have found a better one.”
“I think it’s true, therefore it is, no evidence required” is as antithetical to science as it gets. Your laboratory director probably informed you of this early in whatever training you failed to absorb.
If antiretroviral drugs only seem to work in HIV-infected patients because they kill opportunistic pathogens, then it’s puzzling that clinicians must use an array of antibacterial, antiviral, antifungal and other drugs against opportunistic infections in HIV+ patients. Must be due to their being on the take from Big Pharma.
Speaking of which, the death metal band Hypocrisy has emerged after eight years of silence to release a new album featuring the anti-Pharma song “Chemical Whore”. The compelling video includes a corpse being wheeled on a gurney through a forest and over a beach, mixed in with scenes of “dystopian drug trials” and the band performing among “futuristic stasis tubes” while the lead singer emotes lyrics in classical growly fashion. Groovy stuff.
https://loudwire.com/hypocrisy-chemical-whore-lyrics-video-worship-album/
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “But the advantage for the AZT group wasn’t that great, and it was short term. Now it is known that AZT is very toxic, and might have killed more than it helped, if the trial had continued.”
And yet AZT is still included with multi-drug treatments for HIV and overwhelming evidence prolonging life. As for toxicity, yes, and no, depends on dosage; but all drugs have some level of toxicity and one needs to balance benefit vs harms. I doubt you have taken the time to search, for instance, PubMed for up-to-date papers on AZT.
You write: “it is possible to doubt an existing hypothesis before you have found a better one.”
Yes and NO. If existing hypothesis based on limited research/data, yes; but the research on HIV as cause of AIDS is literally overwhelming.
You write: “Also, as I have already said, anti-HIV drugs can kill the infections associated with AIDS, giving the false impression that the patients are improving because the drugs kill HIV.”
WOW! Stupid on steroids. First, the anti-retrovirals don’t kill the infections association with AIDs, other drugs used for that. If the anti-retrovirals keep the HIV in check so it can’t kill CD 4 cells or, at least not as rapidly, and the body, as it always does, manufactures new CD 4 cells, then the patient certainly is improving because the higher level of CD 4 cells confers protection against many infections AND overwhelming research documents how antiretroviral treatment has prolonged lives.
And you write: “[Kary Mullis] was a typical dissenter, and the status quo upholders probably discount everything he ever said, doesn’t matter that he was brilliant.”
He was a biochemist who came up with PCR test, earned him a Nobel Prize. PCR is one of the major tests used for multiple purposes; but being “brilliant” doesn’t mean always right and again, without any explanation, you simply claim “status quo upholders . . . discount EVERYTHING he ever said”. Really “Everything?” Typical of you, extremes of black and white. However, below gives some of the problems with claims made by Kary Mullis. Note, I actually met Christine Maggiore twice when she presented her book, even gave me a free copy. And, as explained below, she denied HIV causes AIDS, refused anti-retrovirals for her infant and then herself and BOTH died. Note Mullis speaks positively about astrology on his website. Just as I explained above, Linus Pauling won Nobel Prize in inorganic chemistry; but in later life pushed mega-doses of vitamin C for just above anything and everything. And despite overwhelming info, he was a climate change denier. Note Mullis helped develop an HIV test. Wow!
From Wikipedia. Kary Mullis
Views on HIV/AIDS and climate change[edit]
Mullis wrote that he began to question the AIDS consensus while writing a NIH grant progress report and being unable to find a peer-reviewed reference that HIV was the cause of AIDS.[19][37][page needed] He published an alternative hypothesis for AIDS in 1994,[38] and questioned the scientific validity of the link between HIV and AIDS, leading some[who?] to label him an AIDS denialist.[39][40] Mullis has been criticized[by whom?] for his association with HIV skeptic Peter Duesberg,[41] claiming that AIDS is an arbitrary diagnosis used when HIV antibodies are found in a patient’s blood.[42] Seth Kalichman, AIDS researcher and author of Denying AIDS, lists Mullis “among the who’s who of AIDS pseudoscientists”.[43] In 2006, Mullis wrote the foreword to the book What If Everything You Thought You Knew About AIDS Was Wrong? by Christine Maggiore,[37][third-party source needed] an HIV-positive AIDS denialist whose 3-year-old daughter died of AIDS-related pneumonia in 2005, and who died herself of an AIDS-related illness in 2008.[44][relevant?] A 2007 article in Skeptical Inquirer described Mullis as an “AIDS denialist with scientific credentials [who] has never done any scientific research on HIV or AIDS”.[45] However, he consulted for Specialty Labs in Santa Monica, developing a nucleic acid-based HIV test.[citation needed] According to California Magazine, Mullis’ HIV skepticism influenced Thabo Mbeki’s denialist policymaking throughout his tenure as president of South Africa from 1999 to 2008, contributing to as many as 330,000 unnecessary deaths.[14] In 2010, Mullis gave a talk at Google at which he was asked about his controversial views on AIDS and HIV. Mullis said “I’m come to the conclusion… that the thing that causes AIDS is not a species of the retroviridae, it’s the whole genus. The people who get sick have a whole lot of different versions…that’s my feeling.”[46]
A 2007 New York Times article listed Mullis as one of several scientists who, after success in their area of research, go on to make unfounded, sometimes bizarre statements in other areas.[47] In his 1998 autobiography, Mullis expressed disagreement with the scientific evidence supporting climate change and ozone depletion, the evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and asserted his belief in astrology.
AZT is toxic. That’s rich. It’s the only drug we use in preggos. But, please Rebel-tell us more.
@Dangerous Bacon
“‘I think it’s true, therefore it is, no evidence required’ is as antithetical to science as it gets. Your laboratory director probably informed you of this early in whatever training you failed to absorb.”
And it’s also antithetical to the way I think. I require evidence, and logic.
My “laboratory director” (research advisor) said “In this lab, we believe … ” followed by a quote from her former research advisor, describing his theory. She had never questioned it, although it had logical defects, which I was able to see. (Not bragging, I am just trying to describe the facts.) This was in a respected U, and her advisor was in a VERY respected U.
So, that’s how it goes, I am sure you don’t believe me. And my research advisor failed to get her dissertation published, which had been accepted by the VERY respected U., because it was not logical. And I had told her that to begin with (which did not make her love me very much).
Not saying I am ultra smart, I just notice when things don’t make sense. It might be a kind of disability. My fourth grade teacher hated me for it. The very smartest people are capable of not noticing things that are illogical, so it isn’t an intelligence thing.
@ Indie Rebel
“My “laboratory director” (research advisor) said “In this lab, we believe … ” followed by a quote from her former research advisor, describing his theory. She had never questioned it, although it had logical defects, which I was able to see. (Not bragging, I am just trying to describe the facts.)”
Yeah. Right. You’re a Saint.
“So, that’s how it goes, I am sure you don’t believe me.”
You’ve been peddling quite enough nonsense. So, yeah, not only do I not believe you, I do not even care about believing it or not as it has ZERO consequence and bearing on the issues at hand.
Because… arrogance and fear still keep you from learning the simplest and most significant lesson of all: it’s not about you…
“Not saying I am ultra smart, I just notice when things don’t make sense. It might be a kind of disability. My fourth grade teacher hated me for it. The very smartest people are capable of not noticing things that are illogical, so it isn’t an intelligence thing.”
Getting tired of this BS. There are rules for reason, logic and science. They have been discussed over the centuries for at least 2600 years.
And you’re violating these rules one by one.
It’s not a question of intelligence. It’s about knowing what the value of such rules really are before thinking you have the abilities that allow you to discern when they genuinely break down. You’re failing miserably at that task.
You have a massively inflated ego.
How on earth can you write such bollocks with a straight face?
You’ve just spent the last couple of blog entry comment sections talking about how you believe stuff with NO f@#king evidence at all. You think it’s logical to assume that the universe is sentient and that humans can detect undetectable energy fields with their minds. Your idea of good evidence is an opinion, preferably your own, based on something you’ve read that you like the sound of.
No. It’s obvious that you do not require evidence and logic. I don’t know what kind of lab you were working in but the only labs you should be anywhere near are yellow or black, and I have my doubts about that.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “And it’s also antithetical to the way I think. I require evidence, and logic.”
Yet, you don’t present evidence that supports your comments! ! !
You write: “Not saying I am ultra smart, I just notice when things don’t make sense. It might be a kind of disability. My fourth grade teacher hated me for it. The very smartest people are capable of not noticing things that are illogical, so it isn’t an intelligence thing.”
How amusing. Whether true or not, noticing something that doesn’t make sense in fourth grade is quite a leap from understanding science, which requires basic knowledge in several disciplines, depending on which science on claims to focus on and as I’ve stated, you give NO indication you understand the basics of immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, etc.
You just keeping posting comments without any credibility. Especially when I and others have posted comments with both evidence and logic and you either ignore and/or reject out of hand, not even bothering to check out the references.
@ Indie Rebel
The following is an example where I give evidence and, of course, you will ignore, evidence that you don’t supply in your comments.
You write: “Not always possible to get hard evidence in medical science. Very often it is not possible, so controversies continue for years, decades, centuries. How long did MDs think tobacco was ok before enough evidence was finally gathered? Hundreds of years. It’s kind of amazing to think about — smoking tobacco doesn’t feel good or taste good, makes you cough, makes everyone around you cough — and yet it was a fad for hundreds of years. Didn’t even dawn on modern scientists that it could be harmful until I think around the late1960s.”
So, you think it didn’t dawn of modern scientists smoking could be harmful until the late 1960s. Your stupidity just keeps growing. Let’s look at what was known about tobacco and its harms. As explained below, smoking only really took off in 20th Century, especially after World War II; but there were early positions in previous centuries and even studies going back to 1920s that linked smoking with harms. And the Surgeon General’s report from 1964 was based on 7,000 biomedical journal articles. And, if you really wanted to learn anything, which I doubt, the Tobacco industry began their own studies, which actually also found harms from tobacco, so they suppressed their findings, later revealed on discovery motions in civil trials. And even more interesting is that the same scientists who worked for the Tobacco Industry were the first to work for Fossil Fuel Industry, writing papers against global warming/climate change.
Here are a few or the books I own and read. Actually during the mid-1980s I worked on a research project whose goal was to develop programs for public schools to teach kids NOT to smoke:
Brandt AM (2007). The Cigarette Century: The Rise, Fall, and Deadly Persistence of the Product Defined America. Basic Books.
Kluger R (1996). Ashes to Ashes: America’s Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris. Knopf.
Oreskes N & Conway EM (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues From Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury Press.
AND A FEW ARTICLES ON HISTORY OF TOBACCO, KNOWLEDGE OF HARMS, ETC.
From Cancer Council NSW. A Brief History of Smoking:
In 1602 an anonymous English author published an essay titled Worke of Chimney Sweepers (sic) which stated that illnesses often seen in chimney sweepers were caused by soot and that tobacco may have similar effects. This was one of the earliest known instances of smoking being linked to ill health.
In 1795 Sammuel Thomas von Soemmering of Maine (Germany)
reported that he was becoming more aware of cancers of the lip in pipe smokers
In 1798 the US physician Benjamin Rush wrote on the medical dangers of tobacco
During the 1920s the first medical reports linking smoking to lung
cancer began to appear. Many newspaper editors refused to report
these findings as they did not want to offend tobacco companies who advertised heavily in the media
A series of major medical reports in the 1950s and 1960s confirmed
that tobacco caused a range of serious diseases.
From Elizabeth Mendes (2014 Jan 9). The Study That Helped Spur the U.S. Stop-Smoking Movement. American Cancer Society:
Actually, it wasn’t even until cigarettes were mass produced and popularized by manufacturers in the first part of the 20th century that there was cause for alarm. Prior to the 1900s, lung cancer was a rare disease. Turn-of-the-century changes though, gave way to an era of rapidly increasing lung cancer rates. New technology allowed cigarettes to be produced on a large scale, and advertising glamorized smoking. The military got in on it too – giving cigarettes out for free to soldiers during
World Wars I and II. Cigarette smoking increased rapidly through the 1950s, becoming much more widespread. Per capita cigarette consumption soared from 54 per year in 1900, to 4,345 per year in 1963. And, lung cancer went from rarity to more commonplace – by the early 1950s it became “the most common cancer diagnosed in American
men.”
The 1950 Turning Point
There were a few small-scale studies conducted from the late 1920s to late 1940s that suggested a possible link between smoking and lung cancer, but these studies had several limitations – and didn’t provide the evidence necessary to establish a clear connection between smoking and lung cancer.
This began to change in the 1950s. Five larger retrospective studies were published in the early 1950’s that again showed a link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer. Though important, these studies still didn’t make a convincing enough case as they relied on the self-reported smoking habits of people who already had lung cancer, and compared them to those who didn’t. One potential problem with this type
In January 1952, Hammond and Horn engaged 22,000 American Cancer Society volunteers to help recruit a large group of American men aged 50 to 69 across 10 U.S. states and ask these men about their smoking habits. The scientists ended up with a cohort of about 188,000 men, who they eventually followed through 1955.
After following the men for about 20 months, Hammond and Horn had enough information to publish what they called “preliminary” findings in an August 7, 1954 Journal of the American Medical Association article. Their conclusion was clear: “It was found that men with a history of regular cigarette smoking have a considerably higher death rate than men who have never smoked or men who have smoked only cigars or pipes,” the researchers wrote.”
And a superb paper, Robert N Proctor (2012). The history of the discovery of the cigarette—lung cancer link: evidentiary traditions, corporate denial, global toll. Tobacco Control; 21:87-91:
CONVERGING LINES OF EVIDENCE
Population studies
These were among the first and most convincing forms of evidence. Scholars started noting the parallel rise in cigarette consumption and lung
cancer, and by the 1930s had begun to investigate this relationship using the methods of case-control epidemiology. Franz Hermann Müller at Cologne Hospital in 1939 published the first such study
Animal experimentation studies
Cellular pathology studies
Cancer-causing chemicals in cigarette smoke
In 1960, in a poll organised by the American Cancer Society, only a third of all US doctors agreed that cigarette smoking should be considered ‘a major
cause of lung cancer’.
CDC (2006 Dec). History of the Surgeon General’s Reports on Smoking and Health:
“On January 11, 1964, Luther L. Terry, M.D., Surgeon General of the U.S.
Public Health Service, released the first report of the Surgeon General’s Advisory Committee on Smoking and Health.On the basis of more than 7,000 articles relating to smoking and disease already available at that time in the biomedical literature.”
And K. Michael Cummings (2002). Programs and policies to discourage the use of tobacco products. Oncogen; 21: 7349-7364:
“In the early 1600s King James I of England attempted to discourage the use of tobacco by taxing it, the czar of Russia exiled tobacco users to Siberia, and in China, those caught selling tobacco were executed. . . By the late nineteenth century, tobacco use was widespread, but most people used only small amounts and mainly in the form of pipes, cigars, chewing tobacco or a pinch of snuff”
Do you understand that small amounts, especially when life-expectancies were shorter, would NOT have raised alarm??? Nope, you don’t.
@MedicalYeti
“I wonder why most of the people I diagnose with HIV are asymptomatic?”
If they have no symptoms, then you are diagnosing based only on a positive HIV test. Which means they might not have AIDS. Maybe you prescribe drugs that supposedly prevent progression to AIDS, and when they don’t get AIDS you credit the drugs. Could be a big mistake.
Oh wow. WOW. That’s it. I give up. This must be an act. Did you not live through the Eighties??? To quote one of my favorite posters here: “You are SICK, SICK, SICK!”
But, please, enlighten me: What stopped all the deaths and is now allowing folks with HIV to die with it rather than of it?
@ MedicalYeti (@ Indie Rebel)
“Oh wow. WOW. That’s it. I give up. This must be an act.”
It sure does look like an act. It’s so consistently over the top and so consistently violating the most basic of argumentative rules that you do have to consider the possibility of such nonsense being an act.
Now, some people also do act while knowing they are acting and nonetheless believing in their act, while knowing it to be an act. Humans can be like that…
Interestingly enough, if you replace several words in Indies comment it makes more sense.
“If they have no symptoms, then you are diagnosing based only on a [made up human energy field device] test. Which means they might not have [whatever cancer the supplement is guaranteed to cure]. Maybe you [take supplements] that supposedly [cure] [cancer], and when they don’t get [cancer] you credit the [supplements]. Could be a big mistake”
Keep up the fight.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “f they have no symptoms, then you are diagnosing based only on a positive HIV test. Which means they might not have AIDS. Maybe you prescribe drugs that supposedly prevent progression to AIDS, and when they don’t get AIDS you credit the drugs. Could be a big mistake.”
HIV can take time, especially while latent, to begin killing CD4 cells. The antiretrovirals prevent HIV from proliferating, so can prevent AIDS. Only a big mistake in the eyes of idiots like you. And since, so far, no drug rids the body of HIV, stop giving antiretrovirals and AIDS will eventually develop.
And I second what MedicalYeti wrote: YOU ARE SICK, SICK, SICK!
@MedicalYeti
If you diagnose someone with AIDS only on the basis of a positive HIV test, and you give them drugs to kill HIV, and they never get AIDS, you assume the drugs saved them.
Can you see the logical mistake in that?
After all this time, and having a (purported) science background, is it possible that you still don’t understand the difference between being HIV+ and having AIDS?
I think that’s clear. There are too many mistakes in the comments to believe Indie has even the basic knowledge that a non medical person like me can pick up, in an hour or so, by perusing the websites of health organisations and AIDS charities.
I also think that Indie is actually a full blown denialist or a really good troll. They start off with a slightly controversial view and get into a debate. Then they gradually get more extreme and illogical before finally the full truth is revealed.
@ Indie Rebel
“Can you see the logical mistake in that?”
Everyone on this blog sees the logical mistake that comes with this positive confirmation bias.
Not every practicing doctor does, on the other hand.
But everyone on this blog also sees through your AIDS denialism.
Everyone.
You’re trying to mask your AIDS denialism behind the criticism of positive confirmation bias. It’s an incredibly perverse attitude to revel in this kind of sophistry.
In a perfect world, bullshitting should be a limit to free speech.
And we’re not in a perfect world: you’re indeed doing your best efforts to make it worse. Congratulations for your anti-social behaviour.
Well stated.
@JustaTech
You misunderstood. By consensus upholders, I meant the organized “skeptics” whose mission is to squash dissent. That’s where their energy goes, into maintaining status quo, and defending the official experts.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “You misunderstood. By consensus upholders, I meant the organized “skeptics” whose mission is to squash dissent. That’s where their energy goes, into maintaining status quo, and defending the official experts.”
“Organized?” Give evidence. As for maintaining the status quo and defending the official experts? Well, I’m sure some do this; but others look at the evidence and if it supports the “status quo” what should they do? Stay silent? Basically anyone who refutes those with alternative explanations, in your mind, do so only to defend the status quo, not because they actually understand the science, etc. In your mind, just not possible the consensus is correct, based on extensive science.
As usual, you label people based on whether they agree or disagree with whatever position you support or, at least, think possible. Bull Shit!
@ Indie Rebel
“You misunderstood. By consensus upholders, I meant the organized “skeptics” whose mission is to squash dissent.”
The “organized” skeptics are not squashing dissent. They’re squashing BS. They are squashing the very loud and exhuberant noise made by quacks so that real controversy and dissent may then occur among people who have basic respect for Truth.
What you are promoting is not schumpeterian creative destruction, but destructive creation of BS. “Organised” skeptics have the moral duty to stop your nonsense finding their way into the mind of gullible people.
“Organised” skeptics have, as a core mission, the duty to explain that Truth Matters, and that it matters because lives are at stake when these issues inform medical matters and public policies. Where Truth Indeed Precisely Matters more than elsewehere.
“That’s where their energy goes, into maintaining status quo, and defending the official experts.”
Not quite. I’m not defending experts who overplay their hands. In fact, in my own country, where experts tend to enjoy their privileged status not necessarily out genuine academic work but out of cooptation by our State through various mechanisms such as the Concours de la Fonction Publique, I’m relentlessly bashing them. I’m also relentlessly bashing people from my own alma mater, the Ecoles Normales Supérieures when they (rather systematically) overplay their hand and demand lay people to grovel in front of them because they are the Elite de la Nation.
I have no patience for quite a lot of people pretending to be experts, and rather official ones at that, in my own country.
But in the US, which is a somewhat freer world, it’s the business of freedom of expression and academic work to create experts that around here are more created by the state than they really do emerge out of the free play of reason.
I’ll endlessly defend the free play of reason. Which means defending academics who play by the rules of the free play of reason. Not the other ones… who distort and corrupt reason to the core.
So, no, I do not grovel in front of “experts”. When any expert overplays his hand, he should be put to the ground. Pitilessly
Just like you should be put to the ground, pitilessly, if you attempt to play the expert without the skill set.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“Basically anyone who refutes those with alternative explanations, in your mind, do so only to defend the status quo, not because they actually understand the science, etc. In your mind, just not possible the consensus is correct, based on extensive science.”
No, you misunderstood, of course. There are “skeptics” who unfailingly support the status quo mainstream consensus, every single time. I have seen that over many years at SBM. I do NOT always oppose the status quo, only when I have reasons to think it’s wrong!
Not long ago, Harriet Hall wrote an article critical of the current mainstream consensus regarding puberty blocking drugs for children with gender dysphoria. I was surprised to see an SBMer stand up for common sense against the mob. Well Harriet got slammed for that, and her article was removed. Not surprisingly.
@ Indie Rebel
“Not long ago, Harriet Hall wrote an article critical of the current mainstream consensus regarding puberty blocking drugs for children with gender dysphoria. I was surprised to see an SBMer stand up for common sense against the mob. Well Harriet got slammed for that, and her article was removed. Not surprisingly.”
References needed. I’ve read Harriet Hall, and know she made articles on such matters. As to what precisely you are talking about, I’d need reference to comment upon.
“No, you misunderstood, of course. There are “skeptics” who unfailingly support the status quo mainstream consensus, every single time. I have seen that over many years at SBM.”
Well, given the amount of BS we are facing, I think, yes, that we should deal with it using napalm rather than with tweezers, if you see what I mean…
“I do NOT always oppose the status quo, only when I have reasons to think it’s wrong!”
Like evolution. Like AIDS/HIV.
Thanks for the laugh, pal…
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “There are “skeptics” who unfailingly support the status quo mainstream consensus, every single time. I have seen that over many years at SBM. I do NOT always oppose the status quo, only when I have reasons to think it’s wrong!”
When you have reasons for thinking it’s wrong??? I’ve already stated numerous times that you give your beliefs in comments without any attempt to back with science. Your beliefs are just that your subjective beliefs and I and others have refuted them; but you just ignore what we write. Continual proof of your intellectual dishonest. As for “unfailingly support . . . every time. Given how much is out there, it is not impossible that this blog has covered areas that have strong science, so, yep, supported. If you think otherwise, pick something and refute it, point by point, with science, including references and not just one per point. Otherwise, just your belief, just your opinion.
You write: “Not long ago, Harriet Hall wrote an article critical of the current mainstream consensus regarding puberty blocking drugs for children with gender dysphoria. I was surprised to see an SBMer stand up for common sense against the mob. Well Harriet got slammed for that, and her article was removed. Not surprisingly.”
I just found the following on Science-Based Medicine. Doesn’t seem her articles were removed! ! !
Harriet Hall (2018 Sep 18). Rapid-onset Gender Dysphoria and Squelching Controversial Evidence.
Harriet Hall (2018 Sep 11). Gender Dysphoria in Children.
@ Indie Rebel
“I just found the following on Science-Based Medicine. Doesn’t seem her articles were removed! ! ! Harriet Hall (2018 Sep 18). Rapid-onset Gender Dysphoria and Squelching Controversial Evidence. Harriet Hall (2018 Sep 11). Gender Dysphoria in Children.” — Joel
Indie Rebel, when I read such blatant lies, I sometimes believe that polite replies are not nearly enough.
I have very little tolerance for such lies.
Next time you claim proof of conspiracy to silence sensible “organised” skeptics, please double-check your claims.
“Please” was already overly polite.
If you do not want censorship laws to come back, do not give ammunition to those that want them back by spreading blatant lies and setting precedents that would justify them.
And that’s still overly polite.
Several prominent books have been written on the dangers, both clinical and psychological, of gender transition in younger patients. The dumbasses on twitter shouted some of them down. Who cares?
You are conflating things here because Fox Noise or whatever told you to. There is no huge conspiracy to block science if it doesn’t fit the “Woke agenda” or whatever else you believe. Turn off the box. Think for yourself. You’re doing a terrible job of being an “Independent rebel.”
For others reading-this is a radioactive topic for us in practice. Fortunately, it is also very RARE. I’ve never encountered a kid who wanted to transition but I don’t practice in a big city. Since I used to be a kid and can remember what a relative “Idiot” I was at that age, I would likely try to counsel caution.
Unlike what Indie and others of its ilk believe, we are not all out here revved up to prescribe Leuprolide or whatever. Not unlike someone who wants to undergo his/her fifteenth plastic surgery, I would recommend a psych consult first. I’m sure some jackaloon is reading this thinking: “He thinks trans people are mentally ill!” Read my words more carefully.
Also, the purpose of this diatribe is to bring some practical reality into the baloney we have been saddled with in this thread.
There was in fact one article removed there, earlier this year, involving a positive book review of someone who claims that gender dysphoria is largely a mass-hysteria fad among teenagers who, late last century, would supposedly have called themselves butch lesbians and been happier that way. This book also claimed that kids who get hormone or puberty blocker treatments often regret it and revert to their assigned-at-birth gender. Harriet Hall accepted the retraction on the basis that the argument in the book had lots of holes in it, and kept a modified version on her own site.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/irreversible-damage-the-transgender-craze-seducing-our-daughters/
Her book review of Irreversible Damage was indeed retracted and republished elsewhere.
@ Indie Rebel
I thought while making dinner a bit more and a better response to your: ““No, you misunderstood, of course. There are “skeptics” who unfailingly support the status quo mainstream consensus, every single time. I have seen that over many years at Science-Based Medicine.”
Orac carefully chooses topics to write on that clearly are wrong, irrational, unscientific, etc., so, of course anyone following this blog who reads carefully what he writes, even checks out some of his linked references, and who understands the basics of science will agree with him. If it were a random selection of topics, things would be different. And your disagreeing says little to nothing since you have made it clear you don’t really understand the sciences that Orac basis his articles on.
Julian Frost
WMD was first put forth by British Intelligence.
So flat earth, I am quoting wikipedia
“Many ancient cultures subscribed to a flat Earth cosmography, including Greece until the classical period (323 BC), the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Near East until the Hellenistic period (31 BC), and China until the 17th century.
The idea of a spherical Earth appeared in ancient Greek philosophy with Pythagoras (6th century BC), although most pre-Socratics (6th–5th century BC) retained the flat Earth model”.
JF you are doing no research.
Medical Yeti
Last in, First out, your tradition.
Number Wang
You are spot on, science does change. Except global warming/climate change those things have 98% consensus no mater what new facts are found.
Modern science suppresses new ideas all the time. Have you forgot the email that reveals the suppression of opposing science?
“Recently rejected two papers….. from people saying cru has it wrong over Siberia. went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully”
“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow-even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
98.6
You are supporting what he opposed.
Joel
You EGO needs to get a clue, nobody reads, much less looks up your citations, I did a test 4 days ago and went to the websites you used, after 2 days the only visits to the cites were mine. your relevance has passed you by.
@ Kaye West
“You are supporting what he [Giordano Bruno] opposed.”
Absolutely not. This is poor romanticisation of that figure on your part.
If, in the Ash Wednesday Supper / Cena de le Ceneri, where his cosmological system was defended, one of the protagonists, the servant / maid, is named Frulla, it is precisely because she mixes everything up. That’s what the name means…
It’s much more scathing, though in a rather joyful manner, than it is sexist. (This is the 16th century, after all…)
If in The Candlemaker / Il Candelaio, the question of superstition and grift pervades all through this theatrical work, it is precisely because Bruno was 100% opposed to anyone that spread and profited from bullshit.
Bruno would have been on Orac’s side.
N.B.: I’m not a Bruno scholar. My ex-wife was kind of Bruno proto-scholar. Some things just can’t get washed away even with time…
But I do believe I have now become one of the most knowledgeable persons outside of academia on Bruno and the social and philosophical context in which he grew.
Ancient cultures indeed believed in flat earth, but Ptolemy (of geocentic model) did not. Flat earth is in religious scripts.
Perhaps you and your friends could dig out that paper. Write to supposed writer and ask for it, for instance. You need see the paper to assess its value
@Kay
Do you believe that it is a bad idea to allow small children to stick forks into electrical sockets?
IF Answer = No THEN contact social services.
IF Answer = Yes THEN send the “welcome to the consensus view” letter.
That’s the way it works Kay. Just because some kids have probably stabbed an electrical socket with a fork and come to no harm doesn’t mean the consensus is wrong. The brave maverick parents who claim that ‘they’ve stabbed a hundred sockets and never come to any harm so consensus is just a big plot to stop people enjoying their freedom to play with forks and electricity’ are just fools.
There is nothing wrong with playing with electricity. I can remember once having put two metal rods in an extensioncord and connecting them with a third rod and then plugging the extensioncord in an electric socket. It blew a fuse and two of the rods melted together a bit. Lesson learned.
Later I had the habit of opening up of electric stuff, like my synthesizer. Once I got shocked, because I had turned of the power, but I didn’t unplug the the powerline. Another lesson learned.
Third lesson I learned was not opinging up a keyboard in the dead of night. Done that once and several keys jumped out, so it took quite some time to put them in place again.
So I don’t think it’s a great idea to let children try to put a fork in an electrical socket.
I blew the tips off a pair of pliers whilst manipulating a live wire in a loose terminal on an electric socket. Took about five minutes for the after-image of the flash to clear. Had to grind down the jaws of the pliers to make them usable.
At least you didn’t try your stick welding experiment live.
@ NumberWang
I didn’t want to get shocked, I was just curious what would happen if I created a short-circuit.
The copy I had of UNESCO’s 700 Science Experiments for Everyone would probably scare the bejeezus out of a lot of parents nowadays. Y’know, pull the rods out of two D cells, connect them to lamp cord with wooden clothespins, plug it in and enjoy making an arc. (OK, they did recommend viewing it through a sheet of mica.)
Accidentally leaning back and putting my hand in a salt-water rheostat, electrolyzing water of course, trying to fit a “My Pretty Pony” with size F model rocket motors (did not go as planned), purple chalk in 6 M HCl, etc. We all got lucky, I suppose, and some better safety gear would have been prudent, but it wasn’t like idioticallly whomping up a propane-driven rocket. Or football or scouting.
Well, I suppose I should feel “Insulted” or “Angry” at your petty taunt. Try again. I don’t need to boast about my military service you fatuous troglodyte. Grow tf up.
You clearly think you’re clever. Ever wonder why you are at the station you’re at in life? No one invites you to parties? Your family doesn’t speak to you? Give it some thought. It doesn’t have to be this way.
You don’t boast about you military service ??? I never mentioned your military service…….
As to my station in life, I receive a military pension, a state pension and social security pension plus a 401k. I can post on this site 24/7/365 just to annoy the arrogant people like you. As to the party, we just went to one Friday at the Frenchman cove with over 150 people all of whom were unmasked and un vaccinated. Most of my senior family are dead as to the rest of my family we text daily ( some of the time we talk about how stupid people like your are).Lata
Narad
Every website has a traffic/hit counter even this site.
Joel
Every religion has an end of times chapter.
for the past 5 years Greenland has been gaining ice, Antarctica has had the lowest temperatures since record keeping. and your still stuck in the global warming.climate change mantra
polarportal.dk/en/greenland/
cnn.com/2021/10/09/weather/weather-record-cold-antarctica-climate-change/index.html
and wasn’t Manhattan suppose to be under water by now
and
Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”
January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”
Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.
“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say,
Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say,I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.
Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
but to your point the average human is made up of 5 to 20 pounds of shit but in your case its double that because of your super ego.
WOW. Just WOW.
This is 100 % unreason.
Where would that be on the page, Kay?
And you ascertained this how?
@ Kay West
You are literally full of shit. Yep, new facts keep coming on climate change and they keep finding their predictions were wrong, that is, wrong in that things are happening faster and faster. As for it being my ego for giving citations/references, nope, the exact opposite, rather than claim my opinion is all that matters, I back what I state with valid websites/papers, etc. Some of the papers I have written refuting antivaxxers, for instance, have had up to 150 references. Just as I gave several papers that clearly stated you were wrong about covid deaths in India, etc. and you ignore.
As for flat earth, just how really stupid are you? Long before science as we know it existed. Yep, one man Eratosthenes demonstrated it; but few paid attention. And you mentioned Bruno. Don’t you realize at the time it wasn’t scientists that had any power but the Catholic Church?
I have refuted time and time again every claim you have made and you simply ignore and keep demonstrating just how stupid, intellectually dishonest you are.
Climate change. Glaciers moving at ever increasing speeds and amount of precipitation behind them less than needed to replace. Ice cores drilled in Antarctica finding various isotopes of oxygen at different levels. And on and on it goes; but, of course, you are smarter than the 97% of scientists around the world who support that climate change is real. Yep, just as with vaccines and covid, etc. you have NEVER demonstrated even minimal understanding of immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, etc.; but you know better. Are you a Trump supporter. He didn’t need scientific advisors because he considers himself an intuitive genius, no need to understand the basics of science.
Yep, consensus before modern science could be based on flimsy points; but modern science with thousands of journals, 10s of thousands of researchers around the world, methodologies that have strong objective foundations, etc. so current consensus on a number of issues will stand the test of time; but a few will change and those part of the consensus will look at the changes, objectively evaluate them, and accept them; but not just jump at anything and everything that contradicts the consensus.
Well, I am 75, so not certain how many more years I will be here; but I’d be willing to bet that if I make it to 85 climate change will begin to make this world a living hell. In the arctic the jet stream may get totally screwed up causing mass ecological disasters, etc.
I’ve asked you over and over; but you refuse to answer, so one more time, what education do you have? And people can learn on their own without formal education, so name one book you’ve read on immunology, etc.
My relevance has passed? Really? I have over the past 10 years had articles published in several well-read magazines, blogs, and even one peer-reviewed medical journal. And I donate blood, actually now plasma and platelets every four weeks, so I do something to help my fellow man and I was volunteer in the Moderna Covid vaccine trials. What do you do, except make a fool of yourself with your comments, to be relevant???
@ Joel
“And you mentioned Bruno. Don’t you realize at the time it wasn’t scientists that had any power but the Catholic Church?”
It’s a bit of an oversimplification to claim that the church was anti-science. It’s mainly that the modern notion of science had not been unearthed. But the church was doing what is now called science. There’s indeed no clear cut historical demarcation on this matter. There’s however a growing conflict between science and dogma at that time that, yes, takes its roots in the copernician conflict. And in the rediscovery of ancient texts by de Medicis & co.
The picture is blurry, as proto-science at that time was mingled with what is now considered superstition. The way that Kepler was using regular polyhedra to model the spacing between orbits of planets is indeed rather hilarious. But it’s, as that instance shows, part of this whole history.
But these anti-science folks have no business trying to appropriate people like Bruno to their cause.
Not one “organised” skeptic wants to burn people at the stake or go squarely against free speech as the engine behind the free play of reason. The situation with Bruno is therefore absolutely not comparable.
Yes, there are vested interests in academia. Yes, not everything is honest. Yes, medicine is instrumentalised on every side, including people claiming to be pro-science. Yes, there still are quite a lot of taboos.
No, the situation is absolutely not comparable with Bruno’s. Because these anti-science folks live in a free country, and are free to make their case for their massive nonsense. And if they live in a free country, it’s indeed thanks to the kind of history that took its roots then, in the copernician question.
These people are their own best ennemies. And they do not know it.
@Dangerous Bacon
“After all this time, and having a (purported) science background, is it possible that you still don’t understand the difference between being HIV+ and having AIDS?”
He said he diagnoses AIDS patients who have no symptoms. So what does he base the diagnosis on, if not an HIV test?
@ Indie Rebel
““After all this time, and having a (purported) science background, is it possible that you still don’t understand the difference between being HIV+ and having AIDS?”” — Dangerous Bacon
“He said he diagnoses AIDS patients who have no symptoms. So what does he base the diagnosis on, if not an HIV test?”
A person can have HIV without developing AIDS, but it is not possible to have AIDS without first having HIV.
“Diagnostic criteria for AIDS established by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). To be diagnosed with AIDS, a person with HIV must have an AIDS-defining condition or have a CD4 count less than 200 cells/mm³ (regardless of whether the person has an AIDS-defining condition).”
http://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/glossary/aids-case-definition
Knowledgeable, reputable physicians do not diagnose, much less treat AIDS solely on the basis of positive HIV testing.
Current recommendation is that all sexually-active adults get screened at least once. Others more frequently. Hence-we catch some who are asymptomatic before they can spread it around.
I guess I should have told the rape victim in the ER last month I didn’t need to screen her for HIV after she was assaulted repeatedly by a guy who just got out of prison?
“New recommendations pulled directly from foul rectum state you needn’t be screened. The drugs I would give you for post-exposure prevention would only kill the HIV virus. It’s a friendly virus, you’ll get used to it. Here’s a list of AAPS-approved doctors you can go see…” Imagine defending that in court?
No:
If you want to spew horseshit, don’t try to put it in other people’s mouths.
Here is an interesting study, press release and all….
So, the high reinfection rate is inconsistent with the finding that Omicron cases have already started to recede in South Africa. Explaining this and suggesting something quite worrying, it may be proving that indeed Covid vaccines, especially mRNA ones, are hampering natural immunity. If it’s the case, we are more likely to find the effect in high vaxxed UK but not so in low vaxxed South Africa.
So, a Pfizer booster was a high of 85% in preventing infection and whereas just two Pfizer doses was only a high of 20% in stopping infection? Consider though that these findings don’t appear to be taking waning immunity in account. The UK just started rolling out their boosters less than two months ago, and, with Omicron just arriving, we would expect the boosted to be more freshly vaxxed over the just double vaxxed. Consistent with this, consider the vaccine effectiveness is in the high 90% immediately after being double vaxxed and it plummets in just a few months after.
http://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/232698/omicron-largely-evades-immunity-from-past/
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/mrc-global-infectious-disease-analysis/covid-19/report-49-Omicron/
“it may be proving that indeed Covid vaccines, especially mRNA ones, are hampering natural immunity.”
Did you somehow miss the paper’s conclusion that there were “relatively low remaining levels of immunity from prior infection” in countering the Omicron variant, while a third vaccine dose was far more effective?
From the paper:
“To put this into context, in the pre-Omicron era, the UK “SIREN” study of COVID infection in healthcare workers estimated that prior infection afforded 85% protection against a second COVID infection over 6 months. The reinfection risk estimated in the current study suggests this protection has fallen to 19% (95%CI: 0-27%) against an Omicron infection.”
So much for “natural immunity”.
Tsk, tsk, Greg, so dishonest of you. But par for the course.
@F68.10
“A person can have HIV without developing AIDS, but it is not possible to have AIDS without first having HIV.”
Because the definition of AIDS includes a positive HIV test! That doesn’t mean a positive HIV test means a person has AIDS!
That’s what you are being told. Repeatedly. Are you having trouble understanding? First you get HIV. HIV destroys your immune system over a period of years. Now you have AIDS.
@ NumberWang (@ Indie Rebel)
“A person can have HIV without developing AIDS, but it is not possible to have AIDS without first having HIV.” — me
“Because the definition of AIDS includes a positive HIV test! That doesn’t mean a positive HIV test means a person has AIDS!” — you
“That’s what you are being told. Repeatedly. Are you having trouble understanding? First you get HIV. HIV destroys your immune system over a period of years. Now you have AIDS.”
Does Indie Rebel have trouble understanding ? Well, first I wrote “A person can have HIV without developing AIDS”. Then Indie Rebel got outraged and gave the following rebuttal: “That doesnt mean a positive HIV test means a person has AIDS!”. Which, of course, is very different from my statement “A person can have HIV without developing AIDS”…
Spoiler: it’s not…
Conclusion: this is taking strawmaning to a whole new level. An unthought of dimension.
@Aarno Syvänen
“It says that 19 died in placebo group, 1 in AZT group”
I know that, and I have never read anything by RFK Jr.
19 is a small number, and it was over a relatively short time. AZT is now known to be very toxic, and if the trial had continued the AZT group might have done worse. That trial was NOT enough to base their conclusions on.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “19 is a small number, and it was over a relatively short time. AZT is now known to be very toxic, and if the trial had continued the AZT group might have done worse. That trial was NOT enough to base their conclusions on.”
Yet, since then there have been numerous studies of AZT and it is still being used today in combination with other anti-retrovirals. Yep, if the trial had continued, those in AZT group would also have died. Why? Because HIV mutations and AZT didn’t work any longer. You do understand that retroviruses have extremely high mutation rates, which are now countered by using combination drug treatments. If you understood why using drugs that target different aspects of a virus can lower risk of mutations, then you would understand; but I doubt it.
Have you ever heard of penicillin? First person to get it was dying of severe infection. His infection subsided; but they had limited supply and it came back and killed him. So, in your mind, penicillin doesn’t work??? Just another example of something, in your infinite bias and stupidity, you could jump on as example of SBM’s “pushing drugs.”
You’ve already been shot down on this one, Bitsy. Try to keep up.
Did you notice it was 19 deaths in placebo group, 1 in AZT group.Difference is very grear, There was substantial reduction of AIDS related complications,too. (Opportunistic infections developed in 45 subjects receiving placebo, as compared with 24 receiving AZT.) This is why trial was stopped, reason was not to a cover up, as you hinted . You certainly repeat Robert Kennedy Jr’s opinions,
Who noticed that AZT is “highly toxic” and how this happened ?
@MedicalYeti
“There is no huge conspiracy to block science if it doesn’t fit the ‘Woke agenda”'”
The number of F2M gender dysphoric children has dramatically increased, possibly because of social media. It used to be rare.
Harriet Hall wrote an article on SBM about the over-medicalization of this condition, and a woke MD rushed in to say how irresponsible it is to deny these children the standard treatment. Harriet’s article was removed from SBM.
There is a famous transgender surgeon (she does sex re-assignment surgery and she IS a transgender) and she is very critical of the over-use of gender blocking drugs.
Yet SBM takes the extreme pro-drug position. This is TYPICAL of SBM.
@ Indie Rebel
Don’t you read what others write or just too dishonest. So:
You write: “Not long ago, Harriet Hall wrote an article critical of the current mainstream consensus regarding puberty blocking drugs for children with gender dysphoria. I was surprised to see an SBMer stand up for common sense against the mob. Well Harriet got slammed for that, and her article was removed. Not surprisingly.”
I just found the following on Science-Based Medicine. Doesn’t seem her articles were removed! ! !
Harriet Hall (2018 Sep 18). Rapid-onset Gender Dysphoria and Squelching Controversial Evidence.
Harriet Hall (2018 Sep 11). Gender Dysphoria in Children.
Guess they weren’t removed! ! !
Attention, attention: I JUST TOLD YOU WE DON’T GO STRAIGHT TO DRUGS. Stop wallpapering us with your dopey talking points over and over and READ what people say when we reply!
Do you “think” any of the RIgulars have the slightest bit of interest in your apparent resentment of SBM? Go vent you engorged spleen back there.
Unless there’s nothing left of you there but scorched earth, of course.
@ Greg
How typical of your dishonest approach to vaccines. Yep, Omicron mutations probably means higher risk of infection; but you didn’t include prior natural infection, not vaccination, same higher risk AND so far severity appears to be the same, which means both prior natural infection or vaccination may still confer enough immunity to reduce severity. And, as opposed to your position, I have absolutely NO problem getting another Covid booster, especially if tailored to Omicron and if need be, a booster for any subsequent variants, even twice yearly if needed. You ignore that natural infection has risk of hospitalizations, long covid, and death far greater than among vaccinated, so their study doesn’t mention if, among those who experienced natural infection, some suffered quite a bit.
From the paper you referred to:
“This suggests relatively low remaining levels of immunity from prior infection.”
“We find strong evidence of immune evasion, both from natural infection, where the risk of reinfection is 5.41 (95% CI: 4.87-6.00) fold higher for Omicron than for Delta, and from vaccine-induced protection.
We find no evidence (for both risk of hospitalisation attendance and symptom status) of Omicron having different severity from Delta, though data on hospitalisations are still very limited.”
Ferguson N et al. (2021 Dec 16).
Report 49: Growth, population distribution and immune escape of Omicron in England
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH and Dangerous One, you are not addressing the paradox that is being raised. Omicron is rapidly receding in low vaxxed South Africa and suggesting that previous infections and natural immunity is holding up well there; the study, however, is reporting that reinfections with Omicron is quite high In highly vaxxed UK. nterestingly, the study is just considering reinfections in general and it is not reporting a breakdown for the vaxxed and unvaxxed who were previously infected with Covid.
Again, the question stands, is vaccination in some way –or ways –hampering the gains of previous natural infections? More specifically, is vaccination interfering with natural immunity?
The finding of high Omicron reinfections in the UK is one of the most depressing finding by far. It’s suggesting that the hope that Omicron would blow through the world and provide blanket protection likely won’t materialize — and certainly not in highly vaxxed countries. You guys really screwed the pooch with the vaccines!
@Greg:
ORLY?
LATEST CONFIRMED CASES OF COVID-19 IN SOUTH AFRICA (19 DECEMBER 2021)
“Rapidly receding” my South African arse.
Julian, Dr Coetzee’s South African ass too. She agrees.
@Greg There is a difference between COVID cases and omicron variant cases. Have you some data about omicron.
@space_upstairs
I don’t know if the arguments in the book had holes, and I did not read the book. But Hall’s article made sense to me, especially in light of many other things I read about transgender activism.
The extreme activist position has taken over the medical profession. The claim is that children with gender dysphoria are at risk for suicide if they do not “transition.” There is no concern about possible harms from the drugs, hormones and surgery. No acknowledgement that gender dysphoria could possibly be a result of other problems. The official story says a child can be born with the genetics of one sex and the brain of the other. There is no real evidence for that.
But I think the most important concern is about the hormone blocking drugs, which are given at an age when a child is not capable of making such a drastic decision. The official claim is that puberty blockers cannot cause any permanent damage. That is NOT true.
There is a famous transgender surgeon who says blockers, such as Lupron, can prevent a child from ever knowing what an orgasm is, and from ever having that experience. That is a big deal, in addition to all the possibly permanent physical damage caused by these drugs.
Hormone blockers are used on prostate cancer patients, to save their lives. The drugs have bad side effects and can make these patients feel miserable. Is that really what you want to give a gender dysphoric child? To make them feel even worse?
Transgender activists have taken control of this, and no one can oppose them. Let your child have puberty blockers, or they are in danger of suicide.
@ Indie Rebel: I think this issue is very complex and politically polarized, so most arguments on either side of it will probably have holes in them, at least for a while.
While I think medical treatments for gender dysphoria should be used with caution, the arguments in the book review had enough parallels to ADHD denialism that I had to take them with a grain of salt: “used to be something young assigned-male-at-birth kids grew out of and now it’s popping up in a more age- and sex-balanced population and claimed to be lifelong”; “they are overdrugging kids and surely that can’t be good” (which is also, interestingly, an argument used by antivaxers). And also the extra controversy-inducing factor of involving mental health issues, which are fuzzy diagnoses. Then add politics to the mix, inherent in anything involving sexuality and gender roles, and you get the perfect flame war fuel.
The follow-ups from the “woke agenda” position could not be dismissed in my mind, as there is indeed a long history of youth suicide associated with sexual minority status, and the science so far, young and politically charged as it may be, is looking favorable that the side effects of these drugs, when used carefully, are lesser than the feeling bad that comes with one’s sexual minority status continuing to be suppressed. However, I am open to changing my mind on the specific issue of protocols for drugs and surgery in these cases if the later science comes out on the “non-woke” or “Dark Web” side.
If my kid someday tells me she’s not a she, I will take my kid seriously on the matter rather than write it off as mass hysteria, then ask my kid to talk to a trusted professional and to my FTM cousin if I can get in touch with him, and look up all they can about their options. And if she turns out to have ADHD like I do (so far she shows a few possible signs, like it being hard to get her attention when her name is called even now that she’s almost 3 and has a normal vocabulary for her age after speech therapy, but she’s still over a year out from diagnosable age), I will tell her all about my experience with it and what behavioral techniques and meds have to offer and their downsides. No heroic Pharma shilling, but certainly no pediatric mental health denialism. Because I have seen firsthand what assuming a mental health issue that can be treated with the help of drugs not being properly addressed can do to a kid (my life before age 13). And so has her dad, who developed OCD in his late teens and denied it to himself for years.
“The extreme activist position has taken over the medical profession.” This is unadulterated BULLSHIT. I’m sitting here in a hospital full of medical professionals, not a one is an extreme activist. You really like saying whacked-out, hyperbolic, sensationalist crap don’t you?
What’s more – you reiterated MY POINT and took credit for it. Kids are too young for this stuff and we send them to counseling first. Orac is a surgeon. I’m certain he knows how to do mastectomies. I doubt he would just hook any 15 y/o girl who came in asking for one because she wants to transition without question.
The shit pinyata you keep whacking is getting tiresome.
Yah, the next thing you know, everybody will have reversed their assigned sex at birth. Except you and Gerg, who will only be able to turn out mules.
@ space_upstairs AND Indie Rebel
space_upstairs writes: “There was in fact one article removed there, earlier this year, involving a positive book review of someone who claims that gender dysphoria is largely a mass-hysteria fad among teenagers who, late last century, would supposedly have called themselves butch lesbians and been happier that way. This book also claimed that kids who get hormone or puberty blocker treatments often regret it and revert to their assigned-at-birth gender. Harriet Hall accepted the retraction on the basis that the argument in the book had lots of holes in it, and kept a modified version on her own site.”
While one of Harriet Hall’s articles was retracted, it WAS NOT REMOVED as obviously space_upstairs found it. In addition, it gives links to why it was retracted and to a revised version. Did either of you even bother to read the reasons for its retraction? Many articles over the years have been retracted from peer-reviewed journals; but not removed, just RETRACTED typed across them.
And besides, as I listed twice in comments above, there are two articles by Harriet Hall on the subject as well:
Harriet Hall (2018 Sep 18). Rapid-onset Gender Dysphoria and Squelching Controversial Evidence.
Harriet Hall (2018 Sep 11). Gender Dysphoria in Children.
Joel, this is silly. It was removed.
“In this case we felt there were too many issues with the treatment of the relevant science, and leaving the article up would not be appropriate given the standards of SBM.”
The fact that space_upstairs remembers the incident is only that.
@ Narad
NOPE! space-upstairs gave the link: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/irreversible-damage-the-transgender-craze-seducing-our-daughters/
And, as opposed to several who comment, I checked it out and there it was and still is:
“Book Review: Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, by Abigail Shrier
This article has been retracted. See editors’ notice and link to a more detailed explanation. Comments have been closed. If you wish to continue to comment, go to the more recent article linked to at the beginning of this post.
Note added 6/30/2021: A more detailed description of the editors’ thought process that led to the decision to retract this book review has been posted here. Consequently, we are closing the comments on this post. If you still wish to comment on this issue, please go to the new article”
I would have thought by now that you would have known me better, that is, I don’t refer to things that aren’t there! ! !
Sorry for my imprecision. The content of the article was removed from the site as a result of its retraction (which was for reasons even the author acknowledged were not entirely unfair and political), but you’re right, the link and header remained along with the reasoning behind the retraction, as did all of Dr. Hall’s earlier non-“woke” posts on the topic.
I read the reasons and also have been rereading the later critical follow-up reviews. And it looks like the book itself goes way into political and anecdote-heavy territory and so was rightly worthy of more criticism than praise in a science-based setting. For instance, the book apparently uses the infamous term “gender ideology” which I see as nothing more than a conservative scare term to delegitimize the sociological phenomenon of greater recognition and acceptance of people who…well…defy the status quo regarding what you’re supposed to look like, act like, and want to be called according to what’s between your legs. (And I do wonder why Indie Rebel does not see this status quo as being as worth questioning as, say, germ theory or evolution.)
@ space_upstairs
You write: “Sorry for my imprecision. The content of the article was removed from the site as a result of its retraction (which was for reasons even the author acknowledged were not entirely unfair and political), but you’re right, the link and header remained along with the reasoning behind the retraction, as did all of Dr. Hall’s earlier non-“woke” posts on the topic.”
Perhaps you didn’t notice that on the page you linked to was:
:Further, the original article has already been republished in full on another website, and anyone interested can easily find it there. [Note added: The original review was published on Michael Shermer’s Skeptic website, while a revised version of the review was published on Dr. Hall’s Skepdoc website on July 13. While somewhat improved, it still has most of the same major problems.]”
So, while no longer on Science-Based Medicine, they don’t try to hide it; but link to the original! ! ! While it doesn’t show in this comment, the links are there. I checked them out! ! !
@ space_upstairs
“For instance, the book apparently uses the infamous term “gender ideology” which I see as nothing more than a conservative scare term to delegitimize the sociological phenomenon of greater recognition and acceptance of people who…well…defy the status quo regarding what you’re supposed to look like, act like, and want to be called according to what’s between your legs.”
I do not consider it a “scare”.
We still have plenty of hatred for homosexuals. Granted. I’m witnessing it every day on the far right blog I am following, and it makes my hair stand up on my head.
But we also see really crazy people that are pushing a completely unreasonable agenda.
I, for one, would be more than happy to see sex and gender data disappear entirely on identity cards. I’m also fine with a “male / female / other” distinction.
But I’m not fine with a lunatic like Alice Coffin in my country. Who is elected. And therefore should not be brushed aside as merely a “scare”. When an elected politician is elected, it cannot be dismissed as merely a “scare”.
“In 2020, she published Le Génie lesbien (The Lesbian Genius). In the book, she proposes to women to banish men and men culture from their life.” — wiki
Yeah. Right.
She also opposes marriage because she opposes murder. And, of course, marriage = murder.
That’s a crazy “gender ideology” that should fought to the death, whether or not you hate homosexuals.
This is not merely a scare. It is redefining victimhood. It is redefining male = agressor, female = victim. And I’ve had my fair share of blatant agression by psychiatry that did play on this trope “male = dangerous”. Mommy = psychiatrist made sure that this mental equation followed me wherever I go.
This kind of nonsense is not a game.
I’m happy we do not lock up homosexuals anymore in psychiatry (at least we do not do it officially, but there are always workarounds to achieve that if one really wants to lock up homosexuals). I’m not happy about the craze which you dismiss as a scare.
And, yes, my daughter swallowed the whole gender ideology when she was a toddler. When she started having her periods and realised she was more fond of penises than she initially imagined, she started understanding something was wrong in the way she had been brainwashed. The mental trigger for her was the rainbow flag on the back of books her state-run school gave her just this year. She started seeing that as an ideology that was pushed onto her. And rightly so.
I do recognize illiberalism as a problem, and think it should have stayed in obscure college classes as a debate topic and out of governments just like QAnon should have stayed on 8chan and out of governments. But I hear “gender ideology” and “critical race theory” thrown around very…well…liberally by conservatives opposing mainstream social justice causes. It stinks what happened to your kid, but historically the reverse – gay kids bending over backwards to be straight or at least pass for it – has been a much more common problem. Maybe some of today’s identity politics has illiberal roots, but it can be a noble cause if given a chance (and with the more extreme and functionally impossible positions like female separatism left out).
Were you just in the mood to denigrate people who corrected you over and over and over (! ! !) or something? You’ve been frankly insulting to people because you were confused. This is normally the point where someone gets it together and apologizes rather than entering a whittling contest. (And no, I’m not talking about myself.)
@ space_upstairs
“It stinks what happened to your kid, but historically the reverse – gay kids bending over backwards to be straight or at least pass for it – has been a much more common problem.”
My kid is fine. She even introduced my to Peepoodo. Pure genius. I really recommend season 2 episode 2. Sub-titles available.
My daughter is very obviously more than fine…
I absolutely do not deny that, historically, gay kids had quite a bunch of massive issues society pushed on them. The proof indeed is that to find a place in society… they became priests. Which is why the Church is massively homosexual in its upper strata. (Yes, it’s true…)
The problem is not there. The problem is that, in countries that do not share the same view on social justice as your country, this is engineering a massive backlash. Even homosexuals around here do not want to be associated with the propaganda we are witnessing. They do not identify with it. These SJW are hijacking their voices. And the problem is that these themes are genuinely empowering the far right.
Maybe you win culture wars these ways in your country, but around here, this is a recipe for disaster. The right and far right wing are looking towards Poland and Hungary who passed laws to curtail promotion of homosexual material. Bear in mind that we do not have a first amendment around here. We have free speech, though, but constitutional guarantees are not all that strong. Homosexuals can defend their rights. But a backslide is conceivable.
I therefore believe these people are playing with fire.
And given the nonsense the right and far right correctly highlight from the SJW crowd, I find it technically harder and harder to defend free speech. Keep in mind also that you have billions of people in what was called the third world who now have access to the Internet. It’s hard to sell them democracy when democracy = free speech = Internet = porn. Their cultures are not adapted to it. The slope is too steep, and this is ushering a backlash and a backslide. Even in western societies the right wing is getting more and more annoyed of being morally blackmailed. They do not like faggets. And you cannot change their minds by attempting mass ostracisation. Which will not work anyway as they in the end are the majority.
Defend rights. Please do. Do not expect to achieve that by condoning moral blackmail.
“But I hear “gender ideology” and “critical race theory” thrown around very… well… liberally by conservatives opposing mainstream social justice causes.”
I also do.
But try selling “critical race theory” in France. Do you have any idea of the kind of backlash it creates ? In the US, you do talk liberally about races. As a social construct. And a reality. In relation to slavery. Fine. In colour-blind France, claiming races exists, even as a social construct, is borderline punishable by law. What do you expect to achieve in this context except mass neurosis ?
I do not find the french society very much commendable on the topic of race issues. But how will US theories of critical race theory be received in a country whose entire social model posits colour-blindedness as a foundation of a fantasmatic Republic where only individuals exist ? Where religion is considered private and should not be aired in the open ? Where the dogmatic prerequisite of national belonging is denying any other identity than that of a “citizen” ?
The french model annoys the hell out of me as massively hypocritical. But I do not welcome critical race theory in a context where it is a direct attack on the very ideological foundations of the State.
Article 1 of the declaration of human and civic rights in 1789:
“Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be based ONLY on considerations of the common good.”
Translation: Religion doesn’t exist. Race doesn’t exist. These are not social distinctions. This is why France is colour-blind.
Do you really want to blow that up by pushing critical race theory? I do not.
So, OK, righties are annoying when they complain. OK, righties are prejudiced.
But I simply do not want to blow the very foundations of a country. This is massively irresponsible. And this is what is happening. Which is why you have the Zemmour backlash. Which is 100 % bent on pushing islam back off the public arena (the same way we broke the teeth of catholicism) and denying any other identity other than french. Which is why critical race theory is precisely empowering the far right. As a backlash.
I am not enjoying this. It will not end well.
@ F68.10
That’s the theory, anyway. Some religions or races exist less than others. Our color-blindness has some troubles with visible minorities.
Or to put it another way, we are mostly OK with other colors/religions/orientations as long as we don’t see them. We are a bit schizo this way.
As I may have said elsewhere, it’s very difficult to become a French president if you are not Catholic.
@ Athaic
“That’s the theory, anyway. Some religions or races exist less than others. Our color-blindness has some troubles with visible minorities.”
Yep. But I guess you may understand how dumbfounded I felt when, coming back from South Africa and Lesotho to France, I saw bunches of whites dudes accusing other white dudes of being racist with all the blacks completely out of the picture and not intervening in this intra-white group therapy about racism.
Utterly bonkers.
This has changed. And in a way, going back to Paris recently, I must say it felt a bit more like South Africa than it did when I left Paris decades ago. I do not mind it, personally. But it’s a bit bonkers having a society that is less white than it was, and that keeps pretending that blacks are white, that women are men and that jews are catholics. And, of course, nowadays, everybody loves the jews, if you see what I mean… we may even elect one, won’t we ? How far did we come !! How progressive we are to elect a jew !! Clap ! Clap ! Clap !
“Or to put it another way, we are mostly OK with other colors/religions/orientations as long as we don’t see them. We are a bit schizo this way.”
Yep. That’s kind of the diagnosis I made when coming back from South Africa…
But at the same time, it’s also a bit crazy to believe an “old europe” country should have the same take on immigration as the US and see itself as a land of immigration. Which is not its tradition. An ideological mismatch that fuels hatred nowadays very sensibly. And the US sees itself as a land of immigration while decidedly having a policy to promote highly qualified immigration. We would think of ourselves as greedy bastards if we did.
We’re neither honest on the way we view immigration, and not even honest in the way we handle our discussions as to how we should view immigration. Not honest to ourselves. I’ve never been able to have a rational discussion on this topic. You know, one that faces facts, rejects illogical claims, does not revel in virtue signaling in either the right or left (VERY different kind of “virtues” they signal, BTW).
I’m just annoyed at the complacency the french have towards their own shortcomings, and the level of self-imposed denials on all sides will blow that country up.
“As I may have said elsewhere, it’s very difficult to become a French president if you are not Catholic.”
Which is why Macron is agnostic and claims to believe in “some transcendance”. He’s not catholic. But he’s paying lip service. Many atheists in France, but of the kind 1. complacent or complicit when it comes to promoting catholicism or 2. going to the far far left and confusing atheism with dialectical materialism and persecution of religious people. Like when this catholic procession was semi-attacked by left wingers because it dared tread on their territory.
Many catholics. Many atheists. Haters on both sides. But not one Christopher Hitchens to argue about faith to condemn it. Only callous behaviours and intolerant group think. And islam is doing no better… far from it.
We never had a genuinely pacified and tolerant society when it comes to religion. It was secularised by force by elites because they resented being under church supervision when they f-cked under Louis XIV. The lower classes got secularised by left wing ideologies. Ideologies that have since died. Our secularisation hasn’t been only for show, but it also has been for show. And we’re now heading towards a religious war. Yipee yipee yay !!
We’re dumb. We deserve the war we’re engineering.
Orac – and regulars too numerous to name- have succinctly delineated the defining characteristics of the Brave Maverick Paradigm Shifter so prevalent in alt med so we can recognise them and their followers easily…
BUT there is another dimension to their modus operandi/ cosplay and it deals with – socially oriented traits:
whilst they are OBVIOUSLY far above-the-common, not hypnotised by mass culture, highly perceptive and intellectually superior** they simultaneously are men of the people *** or so they present themselves to their advocates.
They are not ivory tower idealists concerned with philosophical questions but issues deeply affecting the “common” man/ woman. They don’t spend all of their time in labs and lecture halls but are out “saving lives” **** of the people they serve so humanely.
Thus, they maintain a two-faced persona/e : as an extremely elite ground-breaker/ monetary success/ iconoclast AND a down home/ ‘just folks’ citizen which endears them to their audience and encourages identification. They stress their rise from humble beginnings to the higher echelons of science/ academia ( usually totally confabulated) and how they never divorced themselves from their origins in CONTRAST to billionaires, tech bros, globalists, professors, “careerists”, hedge fund dudes, trust fund kids and the moneyed classes. Despite living on estates or ranches and owning corporations.
Unfortunately, this masquerade works: I have heard seemingly normal people thank one of these manipulative charlatans for all of “his good work/ all he does”. Another tells his audience how to save themselves from the next apocalypse by buying useless prepper goods and another, a doctor, tells them to fear most other doctors. An entitled woman who can afford live-away adult schooling for her son with ASD tells average mothers about her own sacrifices. RFK jr is the people’s champion.
** in their own self-evaluations
*** and it’s usually men
**** discounting the efforts of RL physicians like those here
“next apocalypse”
Can there be more than one?
With Mike Adams, there’s a new apocalypse nearly every week.
Clearly they don’t make apocalypses the way they used to. Perhaps Adams should offer an apocalypse subscription service since they come out weekly.
@space_upstairs
Yes transgenderism is a political and emotionally charged topic, so rational communication is difficult.
My skepticism about the drugs has nothing to do with politics or religion, or any of that nonsense. My concern, as usual, is with the over-use of drugs.
I also have skepticism about the psychological theory — what does it really mean to be male or female? If a little girl wants to play with toy trucks and guns, does that mean her brain is really male? Why should we take our society’s gender stereotypes so seriously? Can’t it be ok for a little girl to play with traditionally male toys if she feels like it? Without deciding her brain is biologically male, or that she is in need of medical treatment? Can’t it be ok for a little boy to wear pretty feminine clothes if he feels like it? Yes, some are still very judgmental, but that is decreasing, as it should.
I find the transgenderism controversy to be very confusing, on linguistic and psychological levels.
Maybe there is such a thing as true transgenderism. But unless or until the day comes when medical science can do a healthy and convincing transformation, the drugs and surgery should be avoided as much as possible.
Taking sex hormones for life is not good, for one thing. And unless a man is already very feminine looking, surgery cannot transform him into an attractive woman. And vice versa.
But my main concern is the blocker drugs, which are being used quite a lot now. And considered perfectly safe by health professionals. But that famous transgender surgeon (I don’t offhand remember her name) says they are not. And other experts say they are not.
Well, I’m taking female hormones for more than 40 years and I have recently switched to them in gel-form, because the endocrinologist thought this would be better. I don’t have any healthproblems. As for blocker drugs, I’ve taken them in the years before my operation.
But blocker drugs for autistic children are okay? (at least according to the Geiers).
I still have a picture of myself that was taken almost a month before my operation and people tell me I looked as a very attractive woman then. Yes I’m lucky, but I’m not sure I really looked that feminine before I started taking hormones, grew my hair and use make-up.
I’m still watching car-shows on Discovery or National Geographic and love technical things.
I’m glad things are working out well for you!
I’m trying to avoid IR’s efforts to diver this thread, but I made my views pretty clear on the several TG blogs on SBM this year.
For some new data on transgender individuals in the U.S., the Trevor Project just posted this survey.
https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2021/
Over in the UK, the Helen Webberley hearing was supposed to be concluded back in October but is still ongoing.
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4417757-Helen-Webberley-hearing-continues
@ squirrelelite
Well, I’ve been through rough times, but things have changed a bit in 40 years, though there are things I struggle a bit with. When I had my operation, I considered myself no longer transgender. Now people seem to identify themselves as transgender all the time. I kept it a secret for a very long time. And still prefer that in a way. At least I’m not always bringing it out in the open. It’s not my identity. It’s something I lived through.
@ Renate
“I kept it a secret for a very long time. And still prefer that in a way.”
Well, I’m not very much aware of how people live through these situations.
Maybe I’m saying obvious, but, in the end, this is not quite their business to know these kind of things. People tend to be nasty snoopers. No need to expose oneself needlessly.
Conversely, no one, whether a person or society as a whole, should cower you into silence.
@ Indie Rebel: “Overuse of drugs” is the same argument ADHD denialists and other mental health denialists trot out. Untreated mental health issues are often known to increase the risk of addictive behaviors.. so, pick your poison, literally.
And I’m far from thinking all cross-gender play means a child is trans. My kid is almost 3, has two X chromosomes and the usual associated anatomy, and likes trains and unicorns about equally, with no interest in princesses yet. Is she not a she? I can’t tell. But until she says otherwise, she will be addressed as such by default. I think the idea is to keep one’s mind open to the possibility that a kid will turn out trans, not insist all gender nonconformity is on the trans spectrum. I had social skills issues and black and white thinking as a kid, yet I’m not autistic: I’m ADHD.
As for the imperfection of current sex reassignments, maybe some people would rather be ugly women or short men than feel like people calling them men or women based on their plumbing is somehow not right. After all, plenty of cisgender ugly women and short men live fulfilling lives.
“There is a famous transgender surgeon (she does sex re-assignment surgery and she IS a [sic ] transgender) and she is very critical of the over-use of gender blocking drugs.”
“There is a famous transgender surgeon who says blockers, such as Lupron, can prevent a child from ever knowing what an orgasm is, and from ever having that experience.”
You don’t even seem to “offhand remember” your own comments.
“Vice versa”? Whatever. Let’s try this: You post a photo of yourself, everyone compares with Sarah McBride, and it gets put to a plebiscite.
@space_upstairs
“defy the status quo regarding what you’re supposed to look like, act like, and want to be called according to what’s between your legs. (And I do wonder why Indie Rebel does not see this status quo as being as worth questioning as, say, germ theory or evolution.)”
I explained all that. I said people should not be intimidated into conforming to society’s stereotype for their gender. If a man likes to wear feminine clothes, he should not be criticized for it. And he should not have to “transition” into being a woman with drugs and surgery in order to dress and act feminine.
I don’t care if transgenders want to have drugs and surgery, that is their choice. I am only saying that I do not think it’s healthy, and the medical industry should be more cautious.
And it is an outrage that young children are allowed to make these permanent decisions. There should be more awareness about the health risks of puberty blocking drugs. Transgender activists brush this off and insist the drugs are harmless. Well according to a famous transgender surgeon, and others, they are NOT harmless.
Of course you do — you’ve been bitching and moaning about it since the inchoate HIV/AIDS denialism fell flat. And your dehumanizing vocabulary choice for transgender people, moreover, goes a long way to revealing your loathing.
Fuck off and die in a fire.
Oh, gee, Indie Rebel is a transphobic bigot, too. Quelle surprise.
Good grief. I go away for the weekend and commentor “Top Hits of Being Wrong” has turned into an all around bigot who thinks that my friends should not be allowed to live.
Disgusting.
I and probably most people sympathetic to the transgender movement agree that kids should have less pressure to conform to gender stereotypes. But sometimes that’s not enough. My FTM cousin, like Chaz Bono, tried living as a butch lesbian for years. It didn’t work for either of them. Maybe they wonder what life would have been like if they’d been 13 today and it was ok for kids that age to be trans in many circles.
I have first-hand experience with ADHD meds as both a kid and an adult, and I’ve seen the ups and downs of them. The use of meds for ADHD, or other mental health issues, should deoend mostly on the cost-benefit ratio for the person and their situation. Do I feel a bit less energized on meds? Well, yes, but only a tad: the lows are less low and easier to get out of (which I sure like sometimes), and the highs are barely less high and nobody accuses me of being emotionally absent as a result. If anything, I was more likely to get that accusation while off meds and tuned out. Am I less creative on meds? I doubt it: I’m not really that creative anyway. But I’m less likely to say something that will tick someone off – spontaneity isn’t always wonderful. Do I get stuff done more on or off meds? That’s way more complex, but I am more likely to avoid major oversights, lapses of attention, or falling asleep when I do boring stuff, and boy do schoolkids and middle-aged adults have to do boring stuff sometimes. Do I feel better on meds? Yes, often. Loud sounds, minor setbacks, and deliberate multitasking are far less jarring. Are they the only way to deal with my symptoms? No, but they’re great when behavioral techniques and favorable conditions putting low demand on my executive functions are hard to keep up.
Everything has trade-offs. And sometimes non-medical solutions are not enough, or are too much of a pain, for dealing with mental health issues in non-ideal conditions. So I will not begrudge any troubled youth a medical treatment for mental health. Of which none are harmless, but most are safe if used right.
@NumberWang
“First you get HIV. HIV destroys your immune system over a period of years. Now you have AIDS.”
There are many reasons for false positive HIV tests. And no one knows if HIV always progresses to AIDS. Most people who don’t have AIDS symptoms probably never get tested for HIV, for one thing.
HIV kills CD4 T cells When count drops slow enough, AIDS is the result.Why this difficult to understand ?
AIDS symptoms are infections and cancers that usually do not occur among people with effective immune system.
AIDS symptoms are infections or cancers people with effective immune system does not get. These are enough to diagnose AIDS
@space_upstairs
Psychiatric drugs are over-used, especially for children. They are not “treatment” because they do nothing to address the cause (the causes of mental illness being mostly unknown). Psychiatric drugs, in general, dull symptoms. And can also dull good things like creativity, motivation, etc. I understand there is often no alternative, but that doesn’t mean we should be satisfied with the drugs.
@space_upstairs
“And I’m far from thinking all cross-gender play means a child is trans.”
I NEVER said that! I said maybe cross-gender play is mistaken for transgenderism.
What exactly can make parents decide their child has gender dysphoria? A boy wanting ballet lessons and wanting to be called Roberta instead of Robert? A girl wanting short hair and to play baseball?
Does that mean their brain does not match their gender genetics? Or could it mean they will grow up to be homosexual? Or could it mean nothing? Why the heck should we be forced into those stereotypes anyway?
@F68.10
Someone else here said they diagnose patients as having AIDS even if they have no symptoms. That means they must be diagnosing AIDS based only on positive HIV tests.
It is actually low T cell count (AIDS related condition or low T cell count):
https://clinicalinfo.hiv.gov/en/glossary/aids-case-definition
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “There are many reasons for false positive HIV tests. And no one knows if HIV always progresses to AIDS. Most people who don’t have AIDS symptoms probably never get tested for HIV, for one thing.’
First, one doesn’t rely on one test to determine if HIV positive or not. When I was involved in HIV research, first gave an ELISA, then a Western Blot. The odds of both being false positive was infinitesimal.
CDC (2018 May). False-Positive HIV Test Results Fletcher (2018 Jun 12). Western blot and ELISA tests for HIV/ What to expect.
The Western Blot is no longer use; but other improved tests are used if ELISA gives a positive and if both positive, often followed up with a third test.
Fletcher (2018 Jun 12). Western blot and ELISA tests for HIV: What to expect. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com
Kinman T (2021 Feb 15). Tests for HIV: ELISA, Western Blot, and Others. http://www.healthline.com
“Around 1.1 million Americans have HIV. About 15 percent of people ages 13 and older with HIV don’t know they have it. . . AIDS.gov reports that 36.7 million people worldwide are living with HIV, and 35 million have died since 1981.” Healthline (2020 Apr 24). HIV by the Numbers: Facts, Statistics, and You. http://www.healthline.com
I found papers that indicate at least half of those HIV positive will eventually, without retroviral therapy, progress to AIDS; but what you fail to realize is that if HIV positive and not tested or HIV positive and don’t practice safe sex can infect another who may not be so lucky and progress to AIDS.
Typical of you, not knowing that more than one test is used when first testing positive, not knowing that if HIV positive, half develop AIDs; but all can pass on to less lucky people.
But you are right, most not tested for HIV; but:
“Nationally, less than 30% of people in the United States most at risk of acquiring HIV were tested in the past year.” CDC (2019 Jun 27). CDC Press Release – Most Americans Have Never Had an HIV Test, New Data Show | CDC Online Newsroom.
While once a year I have an annual physical, including lab tests for Total Cholesterol, High Density Cholesterol, Triglycerides, HgB A1c (three month average blood sugar level), etc. if I were sexually active I would include HIV test, despite using condom, still small risk. However, no longer necessary, just me and my dog. But I’m sure if you are sexually active, my guess is you could care less about others.
Notice, even though years ago I worked on an AIDS project, I still did up-to-date web search before commenting. I don’t just pull things out of my ass like you do.
NOTE. I actually found another half dozen papers; but above more than adequate references.
@F68.10
“Orac hasn’t been a sheepish follower of consensus.”
I never said Orac was sheepish. He is a fierce defender of “materialist” philosophy, atheism, anti-spiritualism, adamant denier of any kind of life force, opponent of all forms of “alternative” science and medicine.
I have never seen him criticize the drug industry, or any mainstream medical consensus. I have never seen him express any interest in any form of holistic or natural medicine. Never, NOT ONCE. And I have read his, and Novella’s, blogs for years.
I can almost always predict what side the SBMers will take on any controversy. Harriet Hall’s criticism of transgender activism was a nice surprise. Of course she got fiercely slammed for it. A transgender activist wrote a long comment reciting the current mainstream consensus on childhood gender dysphoria, and Harriet’s article was quickly retracted.
@ Indie Rebel
“I never said Orac was sheepish. He is a fierce defender of “materialist” philosophy, atheism, anti-spiritualism, adamant denier of any kind of life force, opponent of all forms of “alternative” science and medicine.”
I am not privy to Orac’s opinion on “materialism”, “atheism” (heard he was of a catholic upbringing, that’s all I know), “spirituality”, “life forces”.
I do know he is anti “alternative” science and medicine. And he’s right about that.
I guess that it is fair to say that “We” are against BS. And being against BS means, indeed, opposing the intrusion of people who deny methodological naturalism, who believe religion can offset evidence and logic, who believe “spirituality” can be a substitute for reason, science, logic and medicine, and who claim “life forces” may legitimately impact scientific litterature.
Yes. We oppose this intrusion. 100 %.
Opposing this intrusion means endorsing methodological naturalism. It says nothing about ontological naturalism.
Opposing this intrusion is not promoting atheism. It is only about keeping religious people and ideas out of the game when they try to interfere with medical science and practice (religion is nonetheless to be accounted for when it comes to patient’s choice and freedom to accept medical care, though).
Opposing this intrusion is not denying the (ill-defined) notion of “spirituality” but keeping it out from making outlandish claims such as Reiki. I’ve got nothing against “spirituality” per se. Just do not know what people understand by that term, in fact. It’s too loaded to discuss with serial strawmaners like you, Anton Chigurh.
It also means opposing the intrusion of the belief in “life forces” if it tries to impact medical care without having any evidence to back it up.
Yes. Absolutely. It is basic mental hygiene.
But this is NOT a claim that only matter exist. It does not claim anything about atheim, spirituality or “life forces” themselves. It merely draws a line to avoid illegitimate interference.
Now, I am claiming atheism is a logical consequence of the scientific approach to theological matters. Do pick a fight with atheists if you so wish. But this is a different topic than SBM, which in itself is perfectly happy to be agnostic with such matters.
Bottom line: if you attack materialism and atheism, you are not attacking SBM. Because this is a straw man. Of course it is… keep denying it is a straw man… but it is. You indeed do not need to be an atheist to value evidence.
“I have never seen him criticize the drug industry.”
I have. And I must say that the most awful pill pushers are not the SBM type. But the anti-science type, who value “patient’s request for medical care” as so absolute that they are willing to give pills to answer that sacro-sanct request even when it flies in the face of science. And then blame the patient for “consumerism”.
Makes me puke.
In France, it has been painfully obvious, in psychiatric care, that anti-science psychoanalysts are the biggest pill pushers. And the SBM types (a minority there) are on the contrary much more moderate pill pushers.
I will therefore not tolerate this nonsense about SBM = pill pushing. It simply is false. Pill pushing is a plague in medicine, and pill pushing is done mostly when flying in the face of science.
Pill pushing is much more of a vice doctors themselves have because of their twisted ethos and self-referential moral conditioning than it is a vice induced by “science”, “materialism” or “atheism”.
Pill pushing is a problem among the medical community more than it is a problem induced by a scientific mindset. In fact, the less scientific you are, the more you push pills.
This has been made explicit in France in the case of Alzheimer.
Drugs for Alzheimer have been removed from the shelf by the SBM Greyface Conspiracy, a.k.a. health agencies. Because science showed their benefit was meager if not inexistant, and because they statistically hastened fatal hip injuries in the elderly.
So they removed the pills… the SBM folks (yes!! them!!) removed the pills.
Who went on a rampage ? The non-SBM doctors. “But this is a scandâââââââl ! We are denying care to the elderly ! Naaaaazis !!!!”
The same usual and typical fuss by science deniers, even when they are doctors. Science proved that the pills they were pushing were hastening the death of their patients, and the only thing they thought of was of screeching like skunks.
And when you scratch the surface, you realise that they knew that they were killing their patients. But they believed that the problem was not about that. That it was about ensuring that, with a pill, you had a hook with which you could ensure that Alzheimer patients or their families would seek out medical care. Because they sought the pills. The magical pills.
In a nutshell: doctors were ready to harm patients just to ensure that they would be under medical supervision. The official terminology around here is “inscrire le patient dans un parcours de soin.”
The first to denigrate science are the first to make a criminal use of their scientific authority to keep patients in line and under their control. And they use pills, they push pills, in order to achieve that.
And that massive hypocrisy may be observed much more generally. It in fact is a general rule:
Who were the pill pushers ? The Big Pharma SBM provaxx folks ? Or Didier Raoult ??
Didier Raoult, of course.
Doctors have an upbringing that ontologically makes them pill pushers. SBM informs them that most of the pills they push… they shouldn’t push. Because… SCIENCE.
Science is all about refuting bad ideas. It’s not about pushing pills…
The fact that you do not understand this basic fact about medicine is dumbfounding.
So. Think twice.
Not in the U.S., I’ve found. The hysteria over opioid prescribing (even tramadol) has me eating a gram a day of ibuprofen for back and hip pain that keeps me from walking more than a few blocks at a time, which leads to a vicious feedback loop.
Of course, even if one can successfully plead the case for relief, it will come laced with acetaminophen, because such people deserve having to play liver damage roulette for being whiny degenerates.
I’m not complaining about the requisite PT referral. But you do have to be able to get there first. And I’m going to lose my shit the next time I see one of these.
(I was surprised that Xanax has also come to be difficult to get a script for, but clonazepam and hydroxyzine actually work fine, although I was the one who suggested trying the latter.)
@ Narad
“Not in the U.S., I’ve found.”
I’ve been laying it thick, Narad.
My main point is that pill pushing is more a vice of doctors themselves than it is a vice of SBM itself. That’s my main point.
The extent to which pill pushing occurs is an orthogonal issue. It wasn’t what I was arguing about.
In the end, I believe the perception of pill pushing is very much person dependent. Doctors disagree as to what constitutes pill pushing. Patients also disagree. Even more, I feel.
As to myself, given my… ahem… environment, it’s not quite as if I ever was deemed worthy of consenting or even knowing. I do not recall ONCE anyone genuinely seeking my consent except under the guise of very thinly veiled threats when I started saying No.
And “it’s best for you” and “symptoms / signs = consent” (what a genius theory this is… dumbfounded when I encountered it…) is not what I call consent.
So I do tend to see pill pushing almost everywhere nowadays. I do try to discipline my anger and hatred when assessing these issues, but I’ll always have a very emotional response that no amount of facts and logic will never offset anymore. Even if reach a logical conclusion on such an issue, I will never take it into account nor take into account whether or not I am “suffering” or would “benefit” from pills. I’ll only care about asserting unambiguously and excessively bluntly my right to refuse, and I deny doctors the right to ask why. There are games I am not playing anymore. So I double check, triple check and quadruple check what the rules are. And they always are the same. So my answer is always the same: No. And legitimise on my side the same level of “coercion” that I am subject to.
But, to me, this is not an SBM or Big Pharma issue. After all, it is not Big Pharma who is leveling a gun to doctors heads to force them to prescribe… even the opioid situation in the US, I find it hard to claim it’s a Big Pharma issue if one doesn’t accept the idea that maybe, just maybe, doctors were responsible for turning a blind eye on some aspects of the reality of opioids…
It’s way too convenient to pin down pill pushing to materialism and science without putting at least some part of the blame on the practitioners themselves.
Now, I may be getting quite a few things wrong, here, but still…
But, generally, I see that the alt-med crowd usually have a good vibe with THEIR doctor. The one they hand-picked… which is perhaps why they attack Science and not doctors per se. Attacking Science instead of doctors. Because they like their own doctors. With whom they have a “special relationship”, y’a know…
I noticed that with the antivaxx crowd. They all love their doctors. The ones that reinforce their beliefs or, at least, smile at their BS. The antivaxx crowd around here is very much “healthcare worker exploited by the government defends the good doctors against the bad Greyface SBM bureaucrats”. Feels like you have class warfare within hospitals masquerading as science denialism and conversely.
Whereas I will never like a doctor. The more he smiles to me, the more the urge to unscrew his head off his body will feel pressing. (Which is why I avoid them like the real plague). So no, me and the antivaxx crowd and people accusing SBM of pill pushing will always be at odds. For eternity.
@ F68.10
Re: SBM and religious beliefs
I believe that most of the regulars here will agree with the sentiments expressed by the XKCD author in this strip.
Well, personal blind spots may apply, of course.
And FWIW, I mostly agree with the rest of your comment.
@F68.10
I agree with your whole post here, especially:
“my daughter swallowed the whole gender ideology when she was a toddler. When she started having her periods and realised she was more fond of penises than she initially imagined, she started understanding something was wrong in the way she had been brainwashed. The mental trigger for her was the rainbow flag on the back of books her state-run school gave her just this year. She started seeing that as an ideology that was pushed onto her. And rightly so.”
The problems, as I see it, are usually found in the extremist views. It’s wrong to persecute homosexuals, but it’s ALSO wrong to despise all straight me. It’s wrong to torment little boys for being feminine, but it’s also wrong to assume they must be transformed into females. And vice versa.
People have a tendency to go to extremes. But there are also many of us who dislike extremism, and prefer to seek common ground and compromise.
My comments inspire lots of hatred, here and wherever else extremist views predominate. It is always assumed that I represent the opposite extreme. But I don’t.
@ Indie Rebel
“But there are also many of us who dislike extremism, and prefer to seek common ground and compromise.”
I’m fine with extremism. Depending on the fundamentals underpinning them. Some fundamentals are indeed better than other.
So I have to disagree with you here: extremism is not the problem, but the fundamentals are. Not all intellectual positions and hence fundamentals underpinning extremisms are equal. Far from it.
I’m fine with extreme rationality. Extreme goodness. Jaïn extremists. And many other kinds of extreme behaviours.
I have a problem with quite a few intellectual positions, however. Like your serial science denialism.
“My comments inspire lots of hatred, here and wherever else extremist views predominate. It is always assumed that I represent the opposite extreme. But I don’t.”
You represent a relativist position, and, in order to push your relativism, you endorse BS. And promote BS. I do not hate you. I simply do not tolerate your ideas. And rightly so.
Perhaps you should go back to mediumship and see if you can pick up any tips. Dale Carnegie must be out there somewhere.
This is actually more revealing with the typo.
@F68.10
“You represent a relativist position, and, in order to push your relativism, you endorse BS”
I don’t endorse BS. I oppose the rejection of ideas merely because they don’t conform to what might be called a “rationalist, modernist” perspective. I believe in using reason, but I also see its limitations. I think that people, in general, tend to have unwarranted faith in their own reasoning. Yes I am what you could call a relativist.
I do not endorse naturopathic practitioners, and think many or most are con artists. I do not endorse professional psychics or mediums or healers. I am as skeptical as anyone here about all that. But I am ALSO skeptical of your absolutist materialist faith. That is what I focus on, because I see it having a very harmful influence on our society. For example, in the over-use of toxic drugs, and mindless faith in experts and authorities.
No, you spout horseshit. This is not that subtle a difference.
@ Indie Rebel
“I don’t endorse BS.”
Factually, you do. You push evolution and AIDS denialism as if you were doing God’s work in opposing dogmatism. No, you are not opposing dogmatism. Cracking the dogmatic framework of thought cannot go hand in hand with that attitude. Relativism offers the best gambit to dogmatists, and you’re empowering them.
“Relativists tend to be disappointed dogmatists who realise that positive confirmation cannot be achieved. From this correct premise they proceed to the false conclusion that all positions are pretty much the same and none can really claim to be better than any other. There is no such thing as the truth, no way to get nearer to the truth and there is no such thing as a rational position.” — Cracking the Dogmatic Framework of Thought
Which indeed is a correct diagnosis of your perspective:
“I oppose the rejection of ideas merely because they don’t conform to what might be called a “rationalist, modernist” perspective.” — you
You’re right to oppose rejection of ideas on the mere grounds that they do not conform to true belief justificationist systems.
“Popper explained that the traditional theories of knowledge are essentially concerned with authoritative sources of belief. Consequently no amount of debate between rival schools does anything to challenge the authoritarian framework assumptions that they all share. In contrast, he argues that no ideal sources exist and all “sources” are capable of leading us in the wrong direction. […] The question of the sources of our knowledge, like so many authoritarian questions, is a genetic one. It asks for the origin of our knowledge, in the belief that knowledge may legitimate itself by its pedigree… if possible from God.” — ibid
Which is why some people did try to use their brains:
“He proposed to replace the question of sources by very different questions: “How can we generate better ideas to promote the growth of knowledge?” and “How can we hope to detect and eliminate error?”‘ For new ideas we have to make use of our imagination. For error-elimination we have to use all forms of criticism to the best of our ability.” — ibid
Which is called rationality, in a modern sense. Your hypercritical stance seems to suggest that you saw this problem. But that you did not perceive the solution. And that you’re going completely astrey because you do not understand what criticism genuinely means and how logic intertwines with criticism and experimentation to engineer error-elimination. You think you do, but you got the details wrong. And you politicise the issue by using denialism as a battering ram.
I’ll never let that pass.
A “rationalist, modernist” perspective.” ?? Seriously ?? You have no clue what that means. Rationality has a history spanning 2600 years at a minimum. There is nothing “modern” in rationality. Most topics are antique. Modern science is mostly based in epsitemological themes developed in the middle ages. What is genuinely modern in rationality is important to know, but it’s nothing if you sidestep the antique and medieval traditions of rationality. So your assessment is completely off the charts.
“I believe in using reason, but I also see its limitations.”
I’m pretty sure you got the said limitations pretty wrong. Rationality is a tremondously powerful tool, and most limitations put on it are mostly theological prejudice relative to the inaccessibiliy of God recast in a relativist mindset about the limits of rationality, and thus open the gap for faith in which dogmatic demagogues of the religious type love to engulf themselves to indulge in power grabs. You’re empowering them by unduly setting the bar for the limits of rationality too low.
Yes there are social costs to research that impede discovery. And social constraints to the scientific enterprise that hinder it. Which is precisely what this blog is dealing with by bashing pseudo-scientific social pressure. Why hasn’t Science taken a consensus position that Free Will doesn’t exist ? It should. If it does not, it’s because of social pressure of a religious bent.
But, in themselves, these constraints are not induced by limits of rationality per se. Far from it.
“I think that people, in general, tend to have unwarranted faith in their own reasoning.”
See ? Here’s the relativist gambit. The same kind of shaming, that faith based systems of thought trap people into, daring them to claim they hold the Truth to better bash them. “What ? You claim to have the Truth ? Truth belongs only to God. And you’re not God. Claiming you have the Truth would be claiming you are God. That would be idolatry. Now please follow me to your cosy funeral pyre we have lovingly prepared for you.” That’s how you cower people into shame, and exercise terrorist authority that allows to enforce dogmas. Which is precisely what the scientific enterprise is bent on dismantling. And, for that, you have to accept that you do have a right to claim Truth. And then withstand criticism to uphold it.
“Yes I am what you could call a relativist.”
And this is an immoral position. It’s a comfortable one. But when the shit hits the fan, when you have a genuine call to make, distinguishing victim and perpetrator of abuse, you cannot morally afford to withhold judgement. In medical matters, lives are at stake. You cannot afford to withhold judgement in medical matters. You cannot afford, morally, to be a relativist.
When the stakes are not as high as in medicine, there is little cost (but some, nonetheless) in the “live and let live” motto. When the stakes are high, relativism is not an option anymore. And medicine is about life and death issues. Which is why AIDS and evolution denialism do matter more than it would otherwise, more than if it did not impact health issues that way.
If someone is a denier of Vagner-Preston’s theorem in semi-group theory, that is a serious offense for someone like me, but the stakes are not life and death. Which is why there are no “organised skeptics” opposing the BS of Vagner-Preston deniers. But also precisely why there are “organised skeptics” opposing the impact of superstition, irrationality and relativism in medical matters.
Maybe one day there will be a movement opposing dogmatism in medical matters too. But before that happens, we will have to crush pseudo-science first. Because the widespread prevalence of pseudo-science offers a free pass to dogmatists abusing science in medicine. Abusing even consensus sanctionned science in medicine. But that’s the next level.
One you haven’t yet reached.
“But I am ALSO skeptical of your absolutist materialist faith.”
Science is not a faith based system. It rejects fideism and appeals to authority.
Science is not a priori materialist. It is not ontologically naturalistic. It is, however, indeed methodologically naturalistic; because miracles have never been observed. When miracles, i.e. violations of the natural order, will have been adequately documented and proven, Science will cease to be methodologically naturalistic.
Science is not absolutist. It is precisely where criticism reigns. And where criticism is the law of the land, absolutism perishes.
You therefore got it all wrong. On all counts.
And you do not perceive it. And you’ll therefore keep parroting that Science is just an absolutist, materialistic, faith based atheistic system like any other religion. Which it is not.
Your “argument”, your seemingly rational excuse for irrationality, has been thoroughly debunked. Here is the reference for the debunking:
The Retreat to Commitment, 2nd edition, William Warren Bartley, Open Court Publishing Company, 1984.
Read that, and you’ll understand why you’re completely wrong.
One of your best comments. You repeatedly bring an important and different point of view to this blog and I value that.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “Indie Rebel
says:
December 18, 2021 at 6:43 pm
@F68.10
“Orac hasn’t been a sheepish follower of consensus.”
I never said Orac was sheepish. He is a fierce defender of “materialist” philosophy, atheism, anti-spiritualism, adamant denier of any kind of life force, opponent of all forms of “alternative” science and medicine.
I have never seen him criticize the drug industry, or any mainstream medical consensus. I have never seen him express any interest in any form of holistic or natural medicine. Never, NOT ONCE. And I have read his, and Novella’s, blogs for years.
I can almost always predict what side the SBMers will take on any controversy. Harriet Hall’s criticism of transgender activism was a nice surprise. Of course she got fiercely slammed for it. A transgender activist wrote a long comment reciting the current mainstream consensus on childhood gender dysphoria, and Harriet’s article was quickly retracted.
First, dishonest as always. As I explained above, yep, the retracted Harriet’s article; but not only explained their reasoning; but gave a link to it where it was reposted on Skeptic. So, they found problems with it, whether you agree with them or not; but they certainly did NOT try to hide it. Rather than criticizing them, you should be applauding them for this. I promise you that almost ALL the antivax websites, alternative medicine websites, etc. would NEVER link to an article they disagree with. Oh, they also link to Harriet’s website where she, though not happy they had retracted her article, took heed of some of their critique and revised it. Again, they link to it, which includes her explaining her disagreement with their retraction.
As for Orac being a “ fierce defender of ‘materialist’ philosophy, atheism, anti-spiritualism, adamant denier of any kind of life force, opponent of all forms of “alternative” science and medicine. I have never seen him criticize the drug industry, or any mainstream medical consensus.”
I guess if there were a website/blog for geology and paleontology you would criticize it for not including Genesis, the Mahabharata, etc. This is a Science-Based Website, simply science requires objective, measurable, reproducible data. If I were invited to a synagogue or church to present what is know about Covid-19 and during Q&A someone asked me what about God’s hand in this, I would simply reply that it is a question outside my area of expertise, outside of science; however, I neither reject nor affirm the possibility, you have your Rabbi, Priest, or Minister here who you can direct your question to. Well, this website is for science, not for spirituality/religion. As for Orac being an opponent of “alternative” science, it is NOT “alternative” science because it doesn’t adhere to the rules of science. And, though you ignored my comment awhile back, the U.S. Government has spent over 2 billion dollars researching so-called “alternative” science and medicine and found nothing to confirm it works. Research included Reiki. If no type of instrumentation that we have can measure the “energy” involved in Reiki and no valid, that is objective evidence it has any effect, then it doesn’t belong on this page. And certainly “spiritualism” doesn’t belong here. And I know devout Christians and Jews who agree with me, keep science separate. If a religious doctor treats a patient using the most up-to-date scientifically valid approach; but also holds the patient’s hand and prays with them, i have no problem with that; but would have a problem with that doctor if at a meeting discussing the latest advances in medicine he attacked the speakers for not including holding a patient’s hand and praying with them.
You are an extremely dishonest despicable excuse for a human being by continuing to attack Orac and this website based on your “religious” beliefs, your beliefs in spirituality. Your hostility to atheism just proves this. An atheist can be a compassionate human being, a great doctor, and so can a religious person, and everyone in between. Basically, you have an extreme hatred of atheism and let it color all aspects of your thinking. You have some sort of spiritual belief and, ignoring what this website represents, just keep trying to proselytize; but actually, the vast majority of us who follow this blog just find you contemptible. When I was in high school, a group of Youth for Christ walked into my Algebra class, the teacher sat down and allowed them to give their spiel. That was wrong, that was horrible. You aren’t all that different.
https://www.politico.com/newsletters/playbook/2021/12/17/this-is-a-real-f-ing-problem-495509
TALES OF AN ANTI-VAXXER — Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most prominent anti-vaxxers in the country. So it came as a surprise when an invitation to a holiday party at his home in California last week urged attendees to be tested or vaccinated beforehand, two people familiar with the matter told Daniel Lippman.
When we called up Kennedy for comment, he pinned it on his better half, actress Cheryl Hines of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” fame. Kennedy said the party was for her entertainment industry friends and cast members, and he was unaware of what the e-vite invitation said before the day of the party.
“I guess I’m not always the boss at my own house,” Kennedy told Lippman. There was also no effort to verify vaccination or testing status of the attendees before entering, he said. (Hines didn’t respond to a request for comment.)
Just this week, Kennedy was the subject of a major AP profile titled “How a Kennedy built an anti-vaccine juggernaut amid COVID-19.” https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-business-health-pandemics-race-and-ethnicity-d140be878b1ef0c5a5cce3cfde71e69c The article reported that the revenue of his charity, Children’s Health Defense, more than doubled in 2020 to $6.4 million. Last month, he released his new book, “The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,” which continues to be a best-seller on Amazon.
“I have never seen (Orac) criticize the drug industry…And I have been reading his blog…for years”.
Then you haven’t been paying attention. Example:
https://www.respectfulinsolence.com/2017/09/08/a-pharma-shill-working-on-behalf-of-an-industry-astroturf-group-shows-how-easy-it-is-to-publish-propaganda-as-a-legitimate-op-ed/
He also weighs in regularly on behalf of holistic medicine. There’s nothing as holistic as medicine that works.
@Aarno Syvänen
“Did you notice it was 19 deaths in placebo group, 1 in AZT group.Difference is very grear, There was substantial reduction of AIDS related complications,too. (Opportunistic infections developed in 45 subjects receiving placebo, as compared with 24 receiving AZT.) This is why trial was stopped”
Without the context of how many were in each group, those numbers are meaningless. And, as I said before, AZT can kill opportunistic infections, so in the short run it can seem effective.
It is well known that AZT is highly toxic.
Newer drugs were compared to AZT, NOT to placebo!
“Newer drugs were compared to AZT, NOT to placebo!”
That’s normal. Once you know something works, any new drug has to be proved better than the old one. It’s about improving standard of care. It could be more effective. It could be the same level of effectiveness but at a much lower dose or much easier to tolerate. I believe that the original HIV treatments had massive amounts of pill taking, round the clock. Modern treatment is much less onerous from what I’ve read.
As far as false positives on the HIV test are concerned. The CDCs own guidelines say that a positive test should be investigated further to make sure it was accurate and explain what can cause a false positive. So, if you think that one finger jab is enough to get ART prescribed, I’m afraid you are wrong.
I’m not sure which is worse, your assumption that everyone is being bribed to show only the results endorsed by big pharma, or your assumption that everyone involved with drug testing and usage is stupid.
If you want to go to statistics P < 0.001
It is curious that you think that AZT is effective only against AIDS complications. These are widely different viral,bacterial and bacterial infections and Kaposi sarcoma. Only thing that explains such a wide effect is that AZT prevents destruction of immune cells.
Newer drugd were compared to AZT, not placebo because there were an efficient drug available. Giving placebo would have been unethical.
How do you know that AZT is highly toxic ? I presume that there is a paper evaluating its toxicity ? Or do you just cite a supplement pusher ? Any case, AIDS deaths went down after introduction of drug therapy. Is this not enough ? Whee is the toxicity
I’m starting to think that IR might be Kelly Brogan…who has come here to knock the edges off her latest hot take before going live with it. Sort of like how some psychopaths become more danger because of counseling not less so?
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “There are many reasons for false positive HIV tests. And no one knows if HIV always progresses to AIDS. Most people who don’t have AIDS symptoms probably never get tested for HIV, for one thing.’
First, one doesn’t rely on one test to determine if HIV positive or not. When I was involved in HIV research, first gave an ELISA, then a Western Blot. The odds of both being false positive was infinitesimal.
CDC (2018 May). False-Positive HIV Test Results Fletcher (2018 Jun 12). Western blot and ELISA tests for HIV/ What to expect.
The Western Blot is no longer use; but other improved tests are used if ELISA gives a positive and if both positive, often followed up with a third test.
Fletcher (2018 Jun 12). Western blot and ELISA tests for HIV: What to expect. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com
Kinman T (2021 Feb 15). Tests for HIV: ELISA, Western Blot, and Others. http://www.healthline.com
“Around 1.1 million Americans have HIV. About 15 percent of people ages 13 and older with HIV don’t know they have it. . . AIDS.gov reports that 36.7 million people worldwide are living with HIV, and 35 million have died since 1981.” Healthline (2020 Apr 24). HIV by the Numbers: Facts, Statistics, and You. http://www.healthline.com
I found papers that indicate at least half of those HIV positive will eventually, without retroviral therapy, progress to AIDS; but what you fail to realize is that if HIV positive and not tested or HIV positive and don’t practice safe sex can infect another who may not be so lucky and progress to AIDS.
Typical of you, not knowing that more than one test is used when first testing positive, not knowing that if HIV positive, half develop AIDs; but all can pass on to less lucky people.
But you are right, most not tested for HIV; but:
“Nationally, less than 30% of people in the United States most at risk of acquiring HIV were tested in the past year.” CDC (2019 Jun 27). CDC Press Release – Most Americans Have Never Had an HIV Test, New Data Show | CDC Online Newsroom.
While once a year I have an annual physical, including lab tests for Total Cholesterol, High Density Cholesterol, Triglycerides, HgB A1c (three month average blood sugar level), etc. if I were sexually active I would include HIV test, despite using condom, still small risk. However, no longer necessary, just me and my dog. But I’m sure if you are sexually active, my guess is you could care less about others.
Notice, even though years ago I worked on an AIDS project, I still did up-to-date web search before commenting. I don’t just pull things out of my ass like you do.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “AZT can kill opportunistic infections, so in the short run it can seem effective. It is well known that AZT is highly toxic. Newer drugs were compared to AZT, NOT to placebo!”
First, AZT was the first drug that benefited people with AIDS. Yep, depending on dosage and duration it was toxic; but without it they would have suffered and died sooner. And, it is till being used in combination therapies today. As usual you see things in extremes of black and white. If you were suffering from AIDS, miserable, knowing you would die shortly and were offered a drug that would temporarily allow you to have a reasonable life; but then would probably end your life (which would have ended anyway sooner), what would you do? Suffer and die soon or die months later?
And I did a quick and dirty search (about 10 minutes) and found several dozen HIV/AIDS studies using placebo, not AZT in control group, and I’m confident there are many more. And, yep, there were also trials that used AZT in the control group; however, your statement as if all or even most used AZT in control group just one more example of your DISHONESTY! Just a few of those I found:
Simpson DM et al (2000 Jun 13). A placebo-controlled trial of lamotrigine for painful HIV-associated neuropathy. Neurology; 54(11).
Gordon M et al (1998 Jan 1). A placebo-controlled trial of the immune modulator, lentinan, in HIV-positive patients: a phase I/II trial. Journal of Medicine; 29(5-6): 305-330.
Vagenas P et al. (2014 Jul). An evaluation of hepatic enzyme elevations among HIV infected released prisoners enrolled in two randomized placebo-controlled trials of extended release naltrexone. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment; 47(1): 35-40.
Cameron DW et al. (1998 Feb 21). Randomised placebo-controlled trial of ritonavir in advanced HIV-1 disease. The Lancet; 351 (9102): 536-537.
And read what I wrote above:
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPHsays:
December 19, 2021 at 12:41 am
As stupid as you are, try to understand that this website focuses on science, that is objective, measurable, reproducible studies. It neither supports nor denies the spiritual, simply it doesn’t fit here and neither do you!
@ Joel
“If you were suffering from AIDS, miserable, knowing you would die shortly and were offered a drug that would temporarily allow you to have a reasonable life; but then would probably end your life (which would have ended anyway sooner), what would you do? Suffer and die soon or die months later?”
Depends if doctors give me a choice or not.
If doctors do not give me a choice, then it is a flat NO.
And if they believe they have a right to hit me to force me, I also do assert my right to hit them.
I’d rather suffer miserably than be coerced to live on terms I do not agree with. Well coerced on any terms, really. I do not tolerate moral blackmail. Well, not anymore, anyway.
But all that’s very personal.
(I used to be much more laid back in the days, before I discovered what I call the totalitarian aspects of medical “care”.)
@ F86.10
I used to think you were a reasonable person; but now???
I don’t know of cases where patients were forced to take AZT. I’m sure they existed; but not the norm. One can always find exceptions to just about anything.
However, even mandates of vaccines in U.S. don’t force people to take them; but vaccines are NOT just to protect the individual; but others, especially those who can’t be vaccinated. However, even these mandates don’t force vaccinations on people. Simply, if they refuse to be vaccinated, depending on situation, either required to test regularly and wear masks or simply not allowed certain places; but again, no one forced to get vaccinated and certainly no one forced to take anti-retrovirals.
@ Joel
“I used to think you were a reasonable person; but now???”
I have much more than a massive grudge of galactic proportions against medicine, Joel.
This one really doesn’t have anything to do with AZT or treating HIV.
[…] vaccinated, I say: So what? Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for instance, frequently claims to be “fiercely pro-vaccine” and points to his having vaccinated his children according to CDC guidelines as proof. The […]
Actually, the history of hiv/aids meds, especially early efforts involving AZT, is how current anti-vaxxers attack Dr Fauci because of his work at the national institute. They make it sound as if he killed people because of poor scholarship or premature approval of the drug. In reality, activists themselves pushed for its early release because it was the only thing that SBM had.
(I’m sure that Joel, who read RFK jr’s book, can list additional tales he read about in the Many Sins of Anthony Fauci – not the real title- such as an experiment involving puppies and stinging flies and one about children in foster care . So many I can’t keep them straight).
Alties usually maintain that all or most meds are dangerous: a theme that emerges amongst anti-vaxxers. The treatment or preventative is portrayed as being worse, more damaging or deadly than the condition itself. They get their audience to focus upon medicine/ vaccine “injuries” or “deaths” ( usually misattributed) rather than the ravages of the diseases themselves . One of the loons I survey insists that he “cured” people of aids without meds purely through diet, supplements, exercise and “living right”. Most alties provide “treatments” to address the illness: with Covid, several scientifically unsupported meds are popular ( ivermecton, HCQ) as well as “strengthening immunity” via diet, supplements and herbs. Websites that double as ( mis) informational sources and vitamin shops exemplify their proprietors’ aims.
Activists’ dictum then was try a drug and count the corpses. It was that bad:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kirby_(activist)
And, now even the WHO is conceding that experiment is a failure. So, Omicron is finding the vaxxed more? Well, they also included the previously infected, but, again, the issue is whether those cases were breakthrough cases or not.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/omicron-more-likely-to-infect-those-vaccinated-against-covid-19-who-warns/9b52ee39-7d2a-4a58-8b8c-afc3e7a8dce2
@ Greg
And so far, those fully vaccinated who have contracted Omicron have been few of those hospitalized and no reported deaths. As opposed to contrarians, antivaxxers, like you, I don’t expect a vaccine to always be 100% effective in completely protecting me; but being 75, if eventually exposed to Omicron and I survive, hopefully not even needing hospitalization, then the vaccine will have benefited me. You jump at every story that even hints that the vaccine isn’t working, when you ignore anything else. You are really one SICK individual! ! !
I would be willing to bet that you have little to absolutely no knowledge of immunology, no knowledge of the history of vaccine-preventable illnesses, and no knowledge of epidemiology. In other words, a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, namely, the more ignore, the more certain.
C’mon, Joel! That’s a strawman. The issue is not that the vaccines are reducing severity for the vaxxed cases, but Omicron is finding and infecting the vaxxed more. Why, Joel? I am ignorant of immunology? Why don’t you show me some mercy then and provide your expertise on the matter. Is it because, as Bossche explains, the vaccines are screwing up innate immunity, and as supported by Nussenzweig et al finding of depressed innate cytokines after mRNA vaccination? Answer the question, Joel, and perhaps after we can talk about how the vaccines are reducing severity.
Here is another article reporting how scientists are ‘puzzled’ about how quickly Omicron is receding in South Africa and how they are optimistically hoping for the same for the US. ‘Scientists puzzled’ has become the new dog-whistle for they dare not say.
Low vaxxed South Africa has high natural immunity to deal with an Omicron flare-up. High vaxxed North America and Europe on the other hand can only throw compromised immunity at Omicron. There is not a snowball chance in hell that Omicron will not set these places on fire, and for quite an extended time.
https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2021/12/20/scientists-puzzled-why-are-omicron-cases-already-falling-in-south-africa-n436763
And, one final reflection for the night. The vaccination failure is so damning that now attention is essential turning away from saving lives and instead turning to saving the vaccines. Seriously, consider how we could better protect people and save lives if we tested more rather than ramming a failed vaccine down every one throats. Doing so though would amount to waving the white flag– too steep of a price for vested interest!
So I decided to have a read-through of the article you linked.
And already we have a false claim. Multiple people here have had their second shot.
Also…
In other words, Omicron appears to be fast-spreading but very mild.
Unconvincing
@Greg There is actually a preprint about vaccine effectiviness against omicron variant:
Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against the Omicron (B.1.1.529) variant of concern
Nick Andrews, Julia Stowe, Freja Kirsebom, Samuel Toffa, Tim Rickeard, Eileen Gallagher, Charlotte Gower, Meaghan Kall, Natalie Groves, Anne-Marie O’Connell, David Simons, Paula B. Blomquist, Asad Zaidi, Sophie Nash, Nurin Iwani Binti Abdul Aziz, Simon Thelwall, Gavin Dabrera, Richard Myers, Gayatri Amirthalingam, Saheer Gharbia, Jeffrey C. Barrett, View ORCID ProfileRichard Elson, Shamez N Ladhani, Neil Ferguson, Maria Zambon, Colin NJ Campbell, Kevin Brown, Susan Hopkins, Meera Chand, Mary Ramsay, Jamie Lopez Bernal
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.12.14.21267615
“Experiment” is not failing
@ Greg
The article that you linked to says: “WHO expert Abdi Mahamud added: “Although we are seeing a reduction in the neutralisation antibodies, almost all data shows T-cells remain intact, that is what we really require.” While the antibody defences from some courses have been undermined, there is hope that T-cells, the second pillar of an immune response, can prevent severe disease by attacking infected human cells.
I guess you missed this. What sickens me most about you is that your comments indicate that you hope the vaccines will fail. You don’t care if people sicken and die. Yep, those who survive will have “natural” immunity, but besides some studies indicate “natural” immunity doesn’t generate as strong an antibody defense as some of the vaccines, your not caring about those who die, get hospitalized, develop long covid from natural infection, makes you just plain EVIL!
And, yep, due to Omicron, mitigation, closing down, etc. is being re-implemented; but without the vaccines, more would have already died.
@ Greg
Nope, Omicron is NOT infecting the vaccinated more than the unvaccinated who have already experienced covid.
You write: “Is it because, as Bossche explains, the vaccines are screwing up innate immunity, and as supported by Nussenzweig et al finding of depressed innate cytokines after mRNA vaccination?”
Give links because I have NOT seen anything that proves the mRNA vaccines are “screwing” up innate immunity. They create an S-Spike Protein, nothing more, nothing less, which antibodies and t-cells learn to recognize. There is NOTHING in any of my immunology books, nor what I’ve read about the vaccines or any vaccine for that matter that would lead to screwing up innate immunity. Give the links; but as the first article you linked to explained, T-cells are intact. And cytokines are actually generated by both the innate immune system and the adaptive immune system. The adaptive immune system is both antibodies and T-cells, so if T-cells are intact, they are generating the cytokines that are mobilizing everything else.
It is waste of time to respond to you because you will search the web and find papers that are NOT accurate; but confirm your hope that vaccines won’t work and your conscious or unconscious wish to see lots of people suffer, be hospitalized, develop long covid, and even die.
You are an extremely despicable excuse for a human being! ! ! ! !
There is an excellent introduction to immunology, only about 150 pages, well-written, and one doesn’t get lost in the detailed biochemistry, etc of 800 page immunology texts. Instead of continuing to make an ass of yourself, why not purchase a copy on Amazon.com and actually read it:
Lauren Sompayrac. How the Immune System Works (6th Edition).
So, Joel, are you conceding that Omicron is infecting the vaccinated more over the unvaxxed who never had Covid? And, as I mentioned, even the catch of having past Covid is not informing of whether those were breakthrough cases.
<
blockquote>
Give links because I have NOT seen anything that proves the mRNA vaccines are “screwing” up innate immunity.
Please read the study below of how mRNA vaccination is reprogramming innate immunity.
Again, tonight, Biden is about to give a speech slamming mainly the minority of the population that hasn’t gotten any vaccines, and while he largely ignores the double vaccinated who are a worse contagious risk as the evidence is suggesting. Biden cannot strikeout too much at the double vaxxed because he doesn’t want to anger them, reminding them that the experiment failed. Yet, by ignoring their contagious risk and not being forceful in pushing other containment measures such as testing, Biden will essentially be giving Omicron a green light to rip through and harm at an unprecedented level. As, I stated, if it’s a choice between protecting lives or the vaccines, one should not kid themselves which these ‘compromised’ leaders will choose.
https://www.news-medical.net/news/20210510/Research-suggests-Pfizer-BioNTech-COVID-19-vaccine-reprograms-innate-immune-responses.aspx
Quoting from the article..
It is a very interesting pre-print (from May!). Did you read the publication or just the news? Because the quote should be ‘The induction of tolerance towards stimulation with TLR7/8 (R848) or TLR4 (LPS) ligands by BNT162b2 vaccination may indicate a more balanced inflammatory reaction during infection with SARS-CoV-2, and one could speculate whether such effect may be thus useful to regulate the potential over-inflammation in COVID-19, one of the main causes of death’. Sound like a positive. What is your take on their conclusion?
Another conclusion of the authors is ‘Here we confirmed that BNT162b2 vaccination of healthy individuals induced effective humoral and cellular immunity against several SARS-CoV-2 variants’.
David, Fohse et al did not come to a firm conclusion as to what is contributing to the diminished innate cytokines after Pfizer vaccination, but their language expressed enough concern that it was something unusual or unexpected. Taken with the real world evidence of higher reinfection rates with Delta, and now Omicron, in highly vaxxed countries and leading to high sustained cases, there is every reason to suspect that the vaccines are acting detrimentally and screwing up innate immunity.
Gerg has scrupulously ignored direct questions about what happens when, TLR4 decides to go for a joy ride, instead bleating about “fighting cancer.”
Can you be specific as to ‘language expressed enough concern’?
Wouldn’t ‘higher reinfection rates’ be an argument against ‘natural infection’? Is it too hard for you to provide a link to the ‘real world evidence’?
You are again into it TRL4 does not fight cancer.it is activated when bacterial infection happens (lipopolysaccharides and heat shock protein). TLRs have always a specific target, a pattern that indicates an infection.
The paper says, too, that some receptors are upregulated and others doenregulated,
@ Greg
Oh, and I forgot that one of your comments equated vaccine mandates and mask mandates with Nazis. I grew up in the late 1940s and 1950s meeting sole survivors from concentration camps. I have met many in my lifetime and read many books and articles, seen many documentaries on the Nazis. And, by the way, in Germany neo-Nazis are supporting those who oppose the mandates. Nazis tortured and killed innocent defenseless men, women and children. Not just Jews, Roma (Gypsies), handicapped, Slavic people. They were a death cult. Whether you agree or disagree, those promoting vaccine and mask mandates are trying to save lives.
Given what I know about the Nazis, if you said that standing in front of me, I would be in jail and you in the hospital. YOU FUCKING GD ASSHOLE! ! !
Joel, you missed my point. Nazis brutality was just the end stage of the desire to piss on individuals’ inalienable rights. The desire to piss on rights is what you guys share, and even if you want to argue it’s for a good What, Joel, would it appease you if I admit that like the Taliban,we are seeing a kinder, gentler Nazism with the current vaccination authoritarianism?
Not Nazism?! We are now forcing unvaxxed people who are at at reduced risk at contracting Omicron to get vaccinated so that they can screw up their immunity and be dependent on boosters for life — and this is all in the name of preserving the experiment If that’s not evil, I don’t know what is.
‘Screw up their immunity’? How did you get to that?
Ahhhh. So it IS a pissing contest, since you want to piss on the right to life of everyone else in order to protect your own right to not take your medicine.
“We are now forcing unvaxxed people who are at at reduced risk at contracting Omicron to get vaccinated”
I’m assuming that you’ve buggered that sentence up. Unvaxxed people would be catching Covid in droves. Presumably you mean unvaxxed people who’ve had Covid and have immunity that way.
Seems that you don’t have much backing for your ‘vaccinating people who’ve already had covid is bad’ theory.
What right is there to be protected from diseases Numb? And, this is even ignoring that your precious vaccines are seriously lagging in providing that protection.
Also, ‘my medicine’? And, I am assuming, as prescribed by you guys.
Is there anyone who hasn’t noticed Gerg’s failure to state whether he’s been vaccinated or actually had COVID-19, despite his constant shrieking?
Perhaps there’s a modicum of hope regarding the tough-guy crowd.
@ Greg
“Joel, you missed my point. Nazis brutality was just the end stage of the desire to piss on individuals’ inalienable rights.”
Nope. Nazis were not about that.
Nope. Nazis are not comparable with vaccination.
If the only goal of the Nazis were to piss on individuals’ inalienable rights, they would be overall decent people. Not worse than, say, Putin.
“The desire to piss on rights is what you guys share…”
Nope. Medicine does piss on individual rights, you’re right. I can’t deny that.
But there’s no comparison possible between being locked up in solitary confinment because I refuse mommy MD’s medical authority and setting democratically deliberated vaccine mandates. No comparison possible. None.
Your case is much weaker than Gipsy Blanchard’s case.
“…and even if you want to argue it’s for a good What, Joel, would it appease you if I admit that like the Taliban, we are seeing a kinder, gentler Nazism with the current vaccination authoritarianism?”
Talibans ? Gee complaining about vaccines mandates as worse than chopping hands ?
“Cutting off of hands is very necessary for security.” — Mullah Nooruddin Turabi, Taliban founder.
So, OK. Chopping hands is very necessary for security, but vaccines ? Nah…
You should go to Afghanistan, your little paradise on Earth: only 9.2 % fully vaccinated.
I’m sure you’ll have profitable civil discussions and chats over there about what the science in the Quran says about vaccination.
What a laugh !! Thank you, Greg ! You’re priceless !!
This is generally regarded as a normative element of societies that have their shit together, Gerg. I think it’s called “infrastructure.” Y’know, like what enables you to pull your never-ending exercise in abject art.
@Greg There were no slippery slope with Nazis. First thing that happened was Enabling Acr, which gave dictatorial powers to the government. Not exactly same thing as a public health measure.
^ Forgot one bit:
Time to brush up on tort law, Gerg.
@ Greg
You write: “Joel, you missed my point. Nazis brutality was just the end stage of the desire to piss on individuals’ inalienable rights. The desire to piss on rights is what you guys share, and even if you want to argue it’s for a good What, Joel, would it appease you if I admit that like the Taliban,we are seeing a kinder, gentler Nazism with the current vaccination authoritarianism?”
We have laws against drunken driving. We have laws mandating seatbelts. We have laws forbidding smoking indoors. All these laws are to protect people. If one were to accept your STUPID slippery slope approach, then we should NOT have any laws restricting how people act. Inalienable rights isn’t an absolute. As several Supreme Court Justices have said over the years: “The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.” No society can function without balancing rights with responsibilities. In fact, when Hitler realized they were losing the war he ordered his loyal followers to destroy the German infrastructure, not to hurt the Allies; but to punish the German people who had failed him. Your equating vaccine and mask mandates with Nazis insults the memory of all their victims.
The fact that you even continue to use Nazism is proof that you are an evil sick FUCKING BASTARD.
Joel- with our host and most every commentariat here , the outstanding ignorance of Greg is well recognized and answered ad infinitum. I know you make a serious effort to maintain your health and I would like to kindly remind you of something my dad ( a Londoner) used to say i.e. ‘keep a cool ‘ed son keep a cool ‘ed’ which may be of help in keeping blood pressure at a reasonable level under the stress of Greg’s persistant inanity. I really appreciate reading your retorts.
@ Greg
You write: “So, Joel, are you conceding that Omicron is infecting the vaccinated more over the unvaxxed who never had Covid?”
I’ve already explained; but since you are such a STUPID ASSHOLE, being infected doesn’t mean sick. About 20-30% of population has Staphyloccocus arias in their nasal cavities. Many of us have Clostridium difficile in our intestines. As long as our immune systems function, we do fine, and they do function, so the overwhelming majority will NEVER get sick from them. If I were exposed to Omicron, then tested with a nasopharyngeal swab, and was found position, I would be advised to stay home for a period of time. And, given the latest reports, I would be fine; but even if I developed flu-like symptoms, still better than risk from being unvaccinated.
As for the article you referred to:
“What do the authors advise?
The researchers say that in combination with strong adaptive immune responses, the reprogramming of innate responses could either contribute to a more balanced inflammatory reaction to SARS-CoV-2 infection or a weakened innate immune response.
Our findings need to be confirmed by conducting larger cohort-studies with populations with diverse backgrounds, while further studies should examine the potential interactions between BNT162b2 and other vaccines,” concludes Domínguez-Andrés and colleagues.
Important Notice
medRxiv publishes preliminary scientific reports that are not peer-reviewed and, therefore, should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or treated as established information.”
So, first the authors admit that the study was conducted on a small sample. Anyone who understands research knows that such a study easily could fail to be replicated. Second, the authors made clear in the beginning that the vaccines were highly effective. And, as mentioned above, if there study is replicated on larger samples, the “reprogramming innate responses could “contribute to a more balanced inflammatory reaction. AND THE STUDY WAS POSTED ON medRxiv May 6th and still hasn’t been published. So, as medRxiv states, not peer-reviewed, shouldn’t be treated as established information.
Just typical of idiots like you and Kay to jump on one study, ignore even the caveats in the study, as long as it attacks vaccines.
And if eventually some variant does overwhelm both those who have experienced natural Covid or those who were vaccinated, sad; but the vaccines would have given us another year or more. You ignore the overwhelming knowledge that without the vaccine we would have experienced at least two million deaths, some just because our already overwhelmed hospitals would not have been able to treat them.
I moved home years ago to take care of my mother when she was diagnosed with cancer. As I always do, I immediately began reading up on her type of cancer, treatments, and any experimental treatments. According to the literature, untreated she had at best two months. After chemotherapy and radiation therapy, she lived 14 months. Yep, the month of treatment was unpleasant; but then for almost a year she could pet her dog, see her friends who came by every day, and I could take her to the zoo, wild animal park, sea world, restaurants, etc. Maybe you think because she was old, should have just let her die; but myself and her friends valued every moment. So, even if vaccines effectiveness wanes to point where doesn’t protect me, I will have increased potentially my life by at least a years. However, I still also wear a mask and if a new booster is offered, have absolutely NO problem getting it, even if needed a booster every three months.
Oh, when my grandparents and parents were alive I phoned them to remind them, to insist, to get the annual flu vaccine, and any other vaccines. Yep, as Jew who loved them, I was being a Nazi. As I wrote, if you stood in front of me and played your asshole Nazi card, I would end up in jail and you in the hospital. Even at 75 i think I could do quite a bit of damage, partly thanks to all the vaccines I have received in my life that have contributed to my maintaining my health! ! !
Keep making a fool, ass of yourself by referring to articles that you don’t even read carefully; but even if you did, represent just one article and ignore the overwhelming data that the vaccines have saved lives, reduced hospitalizations, etc.
“About 20-30% of population has Staphyloccocus arias in their nasal cavities.”
I’m going to assume this is an example of Spellcheck Gone Wild, unless you’re saying that an awful lot of people are hanging out with Jody Arias.
@ Greg
You write: “Joel, you missed my point. Nazis brutality was just the end stage of the desire to piss on individuals’ inalienable rights. The desire to piss on rights is what you guys share, and even if you want to argue it’s for a good What, Joel, would it appease you if I admit that like the Taliban,we are seeing a kinder, gentler Nazism with the current vaccination authoritarianism?”
We have laws against drunken driving. We have laws mandating seatbelts. We have laws forbidding smoking indoors. All these laws are to protect people. If one were to accept your STUPID slippery slope approach, then we should NOT have any laws restricting how people act. Inalienable rights isn’t an absolute. As several Supreme Court Justices have said over the years: “The Constitution is NOT a suicide pact.” No society can function without balancing rights with responsibilities. In fact, when Hitler realized they were losing the war he ordered his loyal followers to destroy the German infrastructure, not to hurt the Allies; but to punish the German people who had failed him. Your equating vaccine and mask mandates with Nazis insults the memory of all their victims.
The fact that you even continue to use Nazism is proof just how SICK SICK SICK you are! ! !
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH writes….
Good gawd, Joel, how does any of those compare to being coerced into injecting an experimental vaccine into your bloodstream that cannot be undone and wish may harm you include killing you, and, should you suffer such harm, the manufacturer of the vaccine cannot be sued? Joel, I think you are the one bringing the stupid, slippery slope argument.
Joel, had the Nazis mandates seatbelts, ban indoor smoking and drunk driving, I wouldn’t turn my nose on those. In addition to the Nazis other brutalities, however, my stomach does churn at them forcing experimental medical procedures on their victims and as it now churns when governments around the world attempt the same.
OK, it’s threadbare. Can it be put into the trash?
@ Greg
You are STUPID ON STEROIDS. They are NOT experimental vaccines. As I explained quite a while back I did PubMed and Google Scholar searches for: Messenger RNA, Messenger RNA Vaccines, S-Spike Protein, and then just Moderna Covid-19 Vaccine. I found several hundred thousand papers on the first, around 300 for the second, over dozen for the third, and over 300 for the latter. And, they went through all the required phases by FDA, e.g., animal studies, phase 1, phase 2, and phase 3. However, usually one submits each, then FDA takes its time, then approves, then on to the next. Not done this time; but Moderna and Pfizer were given Emergency Use Authorization after phase 3 including over two months follow-up and in February in New England Journal of Medicine the Moderna study was published with even longer follow-up. And now we have well over 300 published papers, some for follow-ups longer than six months or more. And no risk of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement. It did occur with the first attempts at mRNA vaccines and they changed the procedure, so NOPE! And despite what you choose to believe, there are NO credible studies documenting long-term vaccine-associated adverse events. And the U.S. Supreme Court ruled way back beginning of 20th Century that vaccine mandates were Constitutional. And no one is forced to get the vaccines; but if one doesn’t, then society has a right to protect itself and limit where they can go.
You choose to believe the vaccines are experimental and dangerous and IGNORE ALL THE STUDIES, including long follow-up studies. Instead you search the web for papers that confirm your bias and even then don’t read them carefully. The one you linked to above made clear that so far the vaccines have conferred excellent protection, a bit less for newer variants; but still excellent.
I realize that NOTHING WILL CHANGE YOUR CLOSED, STUPID MIND, SO I POST MY COMMENTS TO GIVE AMMUNITION TO INTELLIGENT OPEN-MINDED PEOPLE
Despite what you choose to believe, without the vaccine and other mitigations, instead of 800,000 tragic unnecessary deaths we would easily have passed 2 million, many who could have been saved; but with the hospitals already overcrowded, not saved.
And all the experts and I have studied closely their documents predict that given our current world we will have major pandemics occurring at ever shorter intervals and idiots like you or one of your loved ones will eventually suffer.
I do want to thank you for one thing. The paper you referred to on innate defense system and cytokines peaked my interest, so i read it very carefully, obtained half dozen papers in its reference list, did PubMed and Google Scholar search and found altogether 12 up-to-date papers. I learned something. Not afraid to admit it. I learned that some vaccines do affect SHORT-TERM the innate immune system and its cytokines. A couple articles speculated on longer term; but said NO evidence currently. Just one example from several papers. Innate immune system has built in recognition patterns going back thousands of years.They recognize microbes that have infected man for eons. If they recognize one the innate system does several things. One is to initiate inflammation which can kill microbes. However, if either one has suffered natural infection or vaccination, then the adaptive immune system, antibodies and T-cells, recognize immediately and send out cytokines to call for inflammation. If both systems did this the level of inflammation would be catastrophic, so once adaptive immune system working, sometimes the innate immune system’s cytokines calling for inflammation are dampened; but after time, studies I found learned they eventually come back online. And that is exactly one of the explanations in the paper you referred to.
So, the vaccines ARE NOT EXPERIMENTAL, WE HAVE LONG-TERM FOLLOW-UP DATA AND EVEN CURRENTLY HOSPITALIZATIONS AND DEATHS ARE ALMOST OVERWHELMINGLY AMONG THE UNVACCINATED. YOU ARE JUST PLAIN STUPID ON STEROIDS. I SUGGESTED A BOOK ON IMMUNOLOGY, WELL-WRITTEN AND WELL-ILLUSTRATED, INEXPENSIVE AND SHORT; BUT YOU WON’T BUY IT, YOU WILL JUST KEEP MAKING A FOOL OF YOURSELF.
AND ONCE MORE, THE NAZIS WERE A DEATH CULT. EVEN IF ONE BELIEVED THE VACCINES EXPERIMENTAL, PEOPLE IN PUBLIC HEALTH ARE NOT, I REPEAT NOT GIVING THEM IN HOPES OF KILLING OR HARMING PEOPLE. NO COMPARISON WITH THE NAZIS. DOCTOS OPERATE ON PEOPLE WITH ANGINA, SOMETIMES THEY DIE AND THEY MAYBE COULD HAVE LIVED WITH MODEST MEDICATIONS; BUT THE DOCTORS CERTAINLY DIDN’T OPERATE WITH THE INTENTION TO KILL THEM! ! !
The Nazis invented the technique of The Big Lie. Greg obsessively continues to make, shall we say, questionable assertions about vaccines. Make of that what you will.
@Greg Interesting thing is that you think suing id such a great thing. In the case of Lymerix, the product was dropped but lawyers took allthe money.
Biden’s Omicron update…
Hhmmnn! Why are American citizens the only ones being called upon to be patriotic. What about the FDA showing some love of country and promptly releasing Pfizer’s trial data, and not taking 75 years to do so? Surely, that ‘reassuring’ data would go a long way in quelling concerns. What about Pfizer? Will patriotic sentiment not move them to waive their indemnity? Imagine Bhoula before the cameras, clutching his chest and promising that Pfizer will be on the hook for its vaccine as the star-spangled banner plays?! Me neither!
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/biden-pivots-to-home-tests-to-confront-omicron-surge-1.5715363
Big Pharma has form with respect to not wanting to release data. Probably some form of commercial protection. Personally, I think that they should release it to any professional body that has the responsibility for health care at a minimum. Preferably anybody with the qualifications to analyse it.
Not Greg though. We already know that the sentence ‘vaccines have been shown to prevent the cause of many deaths, viruses’ will be translated as ‘vaccines have been shown to xxx xxx cause xx many deaths, xxxxx’ in Greg’s mind.
A pharmaceutical company does want to tell a competitor how a make a COVID vaccine, thus the secrecy.This does not indicate that the product is faulty.
@Greg
“What about the FDA showing some love of country and promptly releasing Pfizer’s trial data, and not taking 75 years to do so?”
How about the censorship of “dangerous misinformation,” which tells us all we need to know about the vaccine makers/Fauci/FDA/CDC/WHO alliance.
I decided to read RFK Jr.’s book, even though I never wanted to read anything by him before, having heard he was an extreme anti-vaxxer. Well Orac’s article says nothing about the book, naturally, since Orac didn’t bother to read it. Sure, write an angry article about a book you never read. He does mention the angry interview someone did with Kennedy, where the interviewer had not read most of the book and had no rational criticism of the part he did read.
Orac has no criticism here of Kennedy’s analysis. I have not finished the book, but so far I read enough to see that it is well written and carefully analyzed. Every vax promoter should read it, but of course none of them will. This is not about pro-vax vs anti-vax. This is about the tyranny of the drug industry and its close ties with Fauci, Gates, the FDA, CDC, WHO, etc. You would be horrified at what they get away with, if you read it, but of course you won’t.
It kind of takes some nerve to trash a book you never read, don’t you think? Just base your opinion on a hostile interview? An interview, by the way, that found nothing wrong with Kennedy’s analysis.
The vax industry lovers don’t seem to care about science or reason, ironically, since they advertise themselves as pro-science. Being pro-science means having curiosity and wanting to know what is really going on. You don’t want to know, you just want to continue adoring Fauci.
So, you’re not checking the references? Whatever.
Did you notice that nobody censored Kennedy’s book ? It is just that people generally do not believe ridiculous conspiracy theories
I’ve read RFK Jr.’s “Thimerosal: Let The Science Speak”, and it’s a compendium of typical bogus antivax memes, made more ridiculous by the fact that thimerosal-containing vaccines had been almost entirely eliminated long before the book was published, with no effect on pediatric health.
As someone who castigates materialism, you should be aware that RFK Jr.’s net worth is listed online as $60 million with a $2 million annual salary. Whatever the precise figures, he’s not hurting for dough.*
*though there might be a crimp in his cash flow if he divorces wife #3 for allegedly printing up invitations to a party at RFK Jr.’s home that requested attendees be vaccinated against Covid-19. 🙂
Really a fascinating book. For example, RFK Jr. describes the Sturgisphere scandal, where fraudulent research was published in the Lance and NEJM. No one knows how or why this happened, but it seemed to be another attempt to block the use of HCQ for early covid treatment.
Here is a nice quote from the Lancet editor (I believe from 2005):
The Editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, is famously quoted as saying: “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”
And I have often wondered how Orac might fit into this, as an ardent promoter of the pro-drug narrative.
@ Indie Rebel
“Really a fascinating book. For example, RFK Jr. describes the Sturgisphere scandal, where fraudulent research was published in the Lance and NEJM. No one knows how or why this happened…”
Yes, we know. It was a fraud.
And I have always pushed for much more transparency in data accessibility.
And, when the fraud was uncovered, all the SBM folks condemned it. Didn’t they unearth the fraud in the first place ?? You do not hear any SBM dudes touting the merits of the Surgisphere study…
Which is not quite the attitude you find in the anti-SBM crowd… when they get caught red-handed, they deny it for years on end. Which is why we could be raping babies on Times Square, we’d still have the upper moral hand on that point.
“…it seemed to be another attempt to block the use of HCQ for early covid treatment.”
Not “another attempt”. We already had a plentiful of lack of evidence concerning HCQ. Surgisphere was unlikely to change much…
“The Editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, is famously quoted as saying: “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.””
Would you be so kind as to provide a link ?
“And I have often wondered how Orac might fit into this, as an ardent promoter of the pro-drug narrative.”
I, for one, would like to see some change in the publishing industry. And I think that there are quite a lot of people who do. One of France’s Orac, Hervé Maisonneuve, is specifically active on that front. Check his blog. And you’ll discover what SBM folks think of scientific publishing in real life, and not in your fantasised la la land…
I.R. is presumably eating instant soup dry. Here.
@F68.10
“The Editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, is famously quoted as saying: “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.””
“Would you be so kind as to provide a link ?”
You know that I am always kind, unlike most of you here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1140949/
“The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they want, and this is especially worrisome because between two-thirds and three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals—Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine—are funded by the industry ”
I have been saying all this for many years:
“Examples of Methods for Pharmaceutical Companies to Get the Results They Want from Clinical Trials
Conduct a trial of your drug against a treatment known to be inferior.
Trial your drugs against too low a dose of a competitor drug.
Conduct a trial of your drug against too high a dose of a competitor drug (making your drug seem less toxic).
Conduct trials that are too small to show differences from competitor drugs.
Use multiple endpoints in the trial and select for publication those that give favourable results.
Do multicentre trials and select for publication results from centres that are favourable.
Conduct subgroup analyses and select for publication those that are favourable.
Present results that are most likely to impress—for example, reduction in relative rather than absolute risk.”
“Peer Review Doesn’t Solve the Problem … a process that research has anyway shown to be an ineffective lottery prone to bias and abuse”
These strategies allow Fauci-Gates to “prove” whatever they want you to believe.
@ Indie Rebel
“You know that I am always kind, unlike most of you here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC1140949/”
Thank you very much.
Everyone here is I guess aware of these issues.
The only way to stop the instrumentalisation of Science, which is precisely what SBM is all about, is to promote institutions like Cochrane. Journals are not supposed to be authoritative sources but mediums of communications. Other institutions should do the rest of the work in order to compile the information and put in evidence when there are signs that science is not working the right way.
What is worrying is not the article you link in. It’s the fact that it’s so hard to set up something like Cochrane. Whatever one may think of Gøtschze, his fate does not bode well for Cochrane’s independence. Nor does the current controversy about Ioannidis bode well for the future of meta-science.
These are real issues.
Now, if you’d please divest your energy from science denialism and devote it instead to promoting the immune system of science against BS, yes, you’d have done a good thing.
There are many flaws casting doubt on medical science. Do not even get me started about the replication crisis in psychology.
But, the fundamental issue is here the following: no matter how flawed the evidence is, we may not discard it out of hand. If we accept your gambit, it is the end of the whole enterprise of seeking knowledge.
We therefore must accept evidence as temporary until proven fallacious. And then build mechanisms to protect it against BS. And nurture them. And you’re not doing that. You’re doing precisely the opposite.
The cost of not doing so is ending medicine. I’m fine with that, given the extent to which I loathe it. But I do not believe you are fine with ending medicine.
So put your money where your mouth is.
Which quote does not appear in the Lancet item that had to be dragged out of you.
@ Narad
That quote is extracted from the article.
PLoS. Not Lancet.
Right. Thanks — it was getting late for me.
“The evidence is strong that companies are getting the results they want, and this is especially worrisome because between two-thirds and three-quarters of the trials published in the major journals—Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine—are funded by the industry”
But anti-vax studies will never be subject to these problems eh? Let’s see, funded by anti-vax organisations or individuals, carried out by anti-vax people, published in journals that accept money rather than evidence?
I don’t see how that’s any better than your worries.
You cite things you can check Iand are quite obvious). Did thus happen during COVID vaccine trials,for isntance
So you are full Fauci Gates nut, nice to know,
@ Indie Rebel
I read RFKs book “The Real Anthony Fauci” and it is full of dishonest examples; but there is an old saying: Even a broken clock gets the time right twice daily,” so, yep, RFK managed to find some valid examples. Let’s start with his depiction of HIV. He says it doesn’t meet Koch’s four points. Absolutely true; but he ignores that Koch wrote that a number of microbes didn’t fit his four points, including tuberculosis. And viruses required an entirely new set of criteria. So, Kennedy is wrong. He devotes a good part of book to claiming HIV not a dangerous virus, that AIDS represents a number of different causes. He also attacks AZT and other retrovirals for being responsible for most AIDS deaths; but towards the end of the book when he is attacking pharmaceutical companies for their patents, he then says many people in South Africa are dying from AIDS because the patents make the drugs too expensive for them. I can give several more examples of him contradicting himself. However, he ignores ALL the studies up to today that, both from electron microscopy, genetic sequencing, etc that overwhelming explain how HIV, a retrovirus, enters the human genome intact, breaks out and how it destroys CD 4 cells, the T-cells responsible for coordinating the adaptive and, to some extent, innate immune systems response to an invader. He relies mainly on earlier, cherry-picked studies. He writes that the human genome is loaded with fragments of ancient virus, which is true; but that doesn’t refute that new intact viruses can and have been shown to integrate into our genomes. And, just one example, he cites Christine Maggiore numerous times. Well, I met her twice, even sat down to a cup of coffee with her and she gave me a free copy of her book. She was HIV positive and clearly didn’t believe it was dangerous. When she became pregnant, her doctors tried to get her on antiretrovirals; but she refused. The infant was born HIV positive and died of AIDs at 3 years of age. A couple of years later she was diagnosed with pneumocystis pneumonia. The doctors tried to get her on anti-retrovirals, she refused, and died at 51 years of age. She was a very nice person. I liked her; but she was wrong. In fact, a number of people RFK cites in his book, HIV/AIDS deniers died of AIDS. And he includes in his references a book that denies the germ theory. Yikes! He also devotes considerable time to claiming the hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are excellent at treating Covid and even preventing it. Orac, a PhD in immunology, has written several of his papers with lots of references debunking this. And he includes the “low” death rates from Covid in India and Africa which I debunked above with several well-done studies. For instance, in many third world nations deaths in rural villages and farms are NOT reported, not even required, etc. And he claims Fauci and others reject healthy diets and exercise. Wrong! Fauci and others do encourage healthy diets and exercise; but regardless of how healthy someone is, if a new microbe attacks, it can kill them or, at least make them very sick. Why? Because ones immune system doesn’t recognize it and it takes time to rev up. Best diet, best exercise, still immune system has to recognize a microbe and even among the healthiest of us, takes 10 – 14 days for immune system to rev up and that may be too late.
In any case, I could write a detailed review of his book, focus on half dozen of his main points and debunk them with science and lots of references. But, as I’ve pointed out numerous times, you have not indicated the least knowledge of immunology, microbiology, or epidemiology, so you just believe what you choose to believe, so, not surprising you believe RFK.
If it wasn’t for people actually suffering because of beliefs like yours, Gregs, and Kay West, you would be quite amusing; but you aren’t.
Oh, one last point. Kennedy writes how his article on Thimerosal and Autism was taken down. But he doesn’t mention why. Several gross errors, including giving literally 10 times the actual amount of thimerosal in any vaccine, etc. And when it was taken down, he simply posted it on his website without any changes. Maybe he finally has made some changes; but I doubt it.
I was wondering when you would return to continue to make a fool of yourself.
@ Joel, PhD, MPH:
Thanks for reading that load of BS.
From the alties I survey, I surmised that RFK jr would “uncover” Fauci’s “malfeasance” concerning hiv/ aids as the main reason to demonise him.
Because these interviews/ reports are aimed at current readers, I think that many liberties are taken about what actually happened in the 1980s so they ( and Kennedy) can lie all the more easily.
You mention their alternate explanation that hiv is “not the culprit” in illness so that they can confabulate various other “causes” like “malnutrition”, “bad habits”, “dirty sex”, “fear of death”. As I’ve commented elsewhere we found that health care workers who suffered needle sticks or cuts during surgery with hiv+ patients became infected despite having none of those alleged risks. These accidental exposures would eventually be addressed with ARVs successfully.
It’s very sad how aids denialists used hiv+ individuals like Maggiore to spread mis-information. AFAIK, all of the well known ones, male and female, have died.
I would be interested in learning how other issues ( like Fauci’s “great wealth” from vaccines) are explained by RFK jr.
Sorry for all of the scare quotes but they’re necessary and easier than typing “so-called” with each misinformed appellation.
@ Greg, Indie Rebel, etc.
Though I’ve explained why the mRNA vaccines aren’t experimental. For sake of argument, let’s assume they were; but now we are well into the pandemic, with some follow up studies of 6 – 8 months and overwhelming evidence shows they are quite effective; but nothing is completely risk free; but the benefit (number of hospitalizations, long covid, and deaths prevented) compared to rare serious adverse events is better than most interventions. Of course, we could have required the studies include long follow-ups, perhaps 2 or 3 years. I’m not sure you would even accept them then; but the number of hospitalized, case of long covid, and deaths would have been much much higher. And despite what Greg chooses to believe, the design of the mRNA vaccines allows only a few hours to churn out one protein, the S-Spike Protein, which is like churning out the first joint of a finger, can get finger prints from; but can’t do anything. The delivery mechanism is nano lipids, fats. There is NO evidence nor reason to believe in long term risk; but given the natural virus includes much more and causes greater reaction in body, illness, etc. long term consequences possible
And now, of all people, Donald Trump got a booster covid vaccine. He had a very serious case of covid and probably would have died if he hadn’t been President and got the absolute best treatment, including monoclonal antibodies that, by the way, had not been proved by large placebo-control double-blind randomized clinical trials to work. And, I would be willing to bet that now he isn’t President, in private when not trying to give the impression he is an intuitive genius, he listened to the science which has found that even those who have had natural covid benefit from booster shots.
There is an excellent article that debunks idea that naturally experience covid provides better protection that the vaccines. In fact, some studies find those who have had natural covid have very few antibodies whereas the mRNA vaccines not only have been found to induce high levels of antibodies; but cross-reactive ones (that is, able to recognize a range of covid viruses) and t-cells:
Joshua Cho (2021 Dec 17). The Dangerous Misuse of ‘Natural Immunity’ Against Covid Vaccination. FAIR {Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
Note. I am not giving URL because sometimes slows down posting of comments and because simply cutting and pasting the title in Google will get you the article.
@ Indie Rebel
As usual, dishonest as ever. Yep, pharmaceutical company studies often positive; but as I explained awhile back, public health departments in numerous nations do their own studies and as I explained, Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, recommends to NOT use any new drug for seven years, UNLESS there is no other drug available for a life/limb/health threatening condition. So, there are numerous drugs now on the market that have been on the market for seven and more years and they have many studies that weren’t financed by the pharmaceutical industry. You really are incredibly stupid to continue to see the world in black and white! ! !
When ever I or when they were alive my parents were prescribed some medication, they always contacted me and I did a thorough search, something I am good at. In fact, some of my friends also usually contact me to do the same.
But, given your distrust of drugs, I highly recommend that if you ever get sick, refuse any drugs! ! !
@ Indie Rebel
RFK claims Fauci responsible for pushing AZT and other antiretrovirals. Nope. During the 1980s, people with full blown AIDS were desperate, including smuggling drugs and trying anything and everything. A group representing them called ACT-UP formed. One of their leaders was Larry Kramer who wrote an OpEd in New York Times condemning Fauci. Then in 1990 a bunch from ACT-UP literally occupied NIAID building. Fauci finally agreed to meet with them, then agreed to allow them representatives on committee and agreed to design studies that dealt with real world AIDS. Result was they pushed for AZT, etc. not Fauci. And despite what you and others continue to write, it did work, that is, prolonged life. And RFK says no evidence that any of the retrovirals have prolonged life. Yikes! There are many alive today who actually had boughts of full-blown AIDS, and alive now severe decades. And from requiring multiple pills, including having to set alarm clock to take in middle of night, now some down to one pill per day. RFKs book basically is one big lie with a few valid, points. I live in the real world and assume that some people will be dishonest; but when scientists around the world are evaluating something, it will be caught!
@ Joel
“Then in 1990 a bunch from ACT-UP literally occupied NIAID building. Fauci finally agreed to meet with them, then agreed to allow them representatives on committee and agreed to design studies that dealt with real world AIDS.”
That’s unfortunately the only way to have genuine discussions with stubborn doctors. Force. Brute force.
@F68.10
My point all along is that we should be skeptical of drug industry funded research. And I have never seen Orac worry about that. Never. He helps to deceive the public into believing “Science” gives us clear answers, regardless of who funds the research. He promotes the false idea that “Science” is monolithic, and we must believe the consensus of the moment, instead of being rational and skeptical.
I see these false beliefs all the time among people who want to feel they are intelligent and educated, but have no background in scientific research. They “trust” and “follow” the science. Mindlessly. They have no idea that experts disagree with each other, that experts are SUPPOSED to disagree with each other. No, that is prohibited now. Dissent from the mainstream consensus and lose your medical license, get banned from youtube.
What is happening is an outrage. I never used the term “un-American” before, but that is what it is. The tyranny of experts, the absolute corruption of “Science,” the suppression of thought.
Yeah I am pissed.
name one person who has lost a medical license like you claim.
Endangering people’s health by departing from reality (pushing ineffective drugs, discouraging vital public health measures etc.) might be good reason to lose one’s medical license.
But yeah, medical boards seem very reluctant to take such action.
@ Indie Rebel
“My point all along is that we should be skeptical of drug industry funded research.”
Not skeptical to the extent we reject it without considering it. Which is the attitude you promote.
Everyone is concerned about the reliability of industry funded research. But we live in a free society, and it is our responsibility to take the necessary steps, using both free speech and free enterprise, to adress these flaws.
But the problem is way way deeper. Ever heard of Theranos ?
Is it because Theranos exists that we should promote homeopathy, crystal healing, assess survival rates by reading life lines in the palms of patient’s hands, use sundials to note time of death ? Hell, no !!
We have no choice but to go into science.
Which means that we have no other pragmatic choice but to consider evidence presented by industry. Not accept it at face value. But NEVER reject it without a good argument.
“And I have never seen Orac worry about that.”
Of course he has made multiple blog posts on many topics pertaining to this. In fact, it has been one of the reasons I tempered down my rabid anti-medicine stance on this blog.
Given my personal history, I’ve been extremely sensitive on the question of these Brave White Knights of Medicine who couldn’t care less about science but who are very keen on submitting and cowering patients into shame by branding them as science deniers. But when I saw the Four Knights of the Apocalypse in the guise of Various Science Deniers trying to hijack my hatred of medicine for the benefit of their anti-science Crusade, I chose my side. And it’s not yours.
Because you cannot correct scientific errors with pseudo-science. Only with more science. Even if you’re the one to bear the possibly lethal brunt, you do not really have a choice, I’m sad to say: pseudo-science is no option.
“He helps to deceive the public into believing “Science” gives us clear answers…”
Nope. Sorry. You’re completely wrong. He’s not one of those.
“…regardless of who funds the research.”
Industry has the right to fund research. Society has the right to criticise back and curtail powers with legislation. Just be sure, when you crack down on industry, that you have a backup plan to keep research rolling. My 2 cents.
“He promotes the false idea that “Science” is monolithic…”
Nope. Again: no. He has never promoted that.
“…and we must believe the consensus of the moment, instead of being rational and skeptical.”
You do not understand what consensus is all about. Consensus is about identifying consensus. And yes, politicians have to go by the consensus if science is to pragmatically have an impact in decision making and thus inform policy.
Scientific consensus is not about enforcing thought police.
However, yes, a fight back against pseudo-science is required. Morally. That is called free speech. Not “thought police”. In fact, free speech and thought police are radically antithetical to one another, you see…
“I see these false beliefs all the time among people who want to feel they are intelligent and educated, but have no background in scientific research.”
Blah blah blah… badaboom badaboom badaboom…
This gambit is getting tiring. You obviously have no clue as to how the scientific method is structured. And here you are, refering to your authority status as having worked in science to cower, us, poor sinners, into grovelling before your “background in scientific research…”
Weren’t you the one bitching about scientists using their authority status to impose a thought police ? You are doing precisely that. And that is precisely what I’m 100 % against and at war with.
“They “trust” and “follow” the science. Mindlessly.”
And you have such an open mind that your brain just dropped to the ground.
Because you confuse having an open mind and having a cracked skull.
“They have no idea that experts disagree with each other”
Cut the crap, will you. There is no façade of scientific merry-go-round-we-all-agree nonsense. This is a fantasy you are pushing to promote your nonsense.
“…that experts are SUPPOSED to disagree with each other.”
Not to the point of claiming that 2 + 2 = 5. Like you do.
“No, that is prohibited now.”
It is allowed.
“Dissent from the mainstream consensus and lose your medical license…”
NOT NEARLY F-CKING ENOUGH !!
When you build bridges, you have to follow rules. Or you get fired. Same thing for doctors. You do not harm patients just because you believe in whatever nonsense you want to believe, like “Intelligent Universe”…
“…get banned from youtube.”
Freedom of speech is not legal obligation to publish what you do not want to publish. This is inherent in both the notion of freedom and in the history of freedom of speech, which is clearly more complicated than you realise.
“What is happening is an outrage. I never used the term “un-American” before, but that is what it is. The tyranny of experts, the absolute corruption of “Science,” the suppression of thought. Yeah I am pissed.”
You are un-american. And I’m not american. But I can tell you lost your moral compass, being unable to distinguish between “free speech” and “compulsory publication of antivaxx crap”.
Actually Orac has said that he checks COI statement and reads the paper more carefully accordingly.
Medical research is paid NIH or other similar organisations. But there is, of course, a great conspiracy.,
So Greg has been arguing that people who have already had COVID don’t need to be vaccinated.
About that…
The first American to die of Omicron was unvaccinated, and previously had Covid
Also from Fohse et al…
This part ‘So, every additional shot of Pfizer’s ‘miracle juice’ is shortening the time of an eventual visit to an oncologist. Wait! — didn’t Dr Ryan Cole have some interesting things to say about this? OK — nevermind!’ is from the paper?
Nah, David. Blockquote fail. But, perhaps in some psychic way, I accurately captured what the researchers were thinking.
Where is the quote from? Because you don’t seem to want to read the actual paper.
@ Greg
First, you ignore ALL the refutations I’ve posted on claims made by you. Second, you continue to cite one paper, a paper that has not been peer-reviewed, and a paper that clearly found only short-term suppression. And despite its name, tumor necrosis factor responds to viruses and possible tumors; but tumors take years to develop and as I and the authors have written, there is currently NO evidence that vaccines, any vaccine, results in long-term suppression of the innate immune system. You just keep making an ASS of yourself by throwing out things as if they are accurate.
As paper said TNF is proiflamatory cytokine., Its name is based on its action iun cell culture
Indie’s complaint that RFK’s critics haven’t spent money to buy and read his book comes off as hollow, since RFK Jr.’s own website encourages followers to take shortcuts to avoid reading it, as it’s so “dense” with “facts”.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/how-to-read-rfk-jr-the-real-anthony-fauci/
I’ve seen this phenomenon with numerous antivax/alt med conspiracy books. Summaries/Cliff Notes versions, sometimes multiple ones, exist so that potential readers won’t hurt their brains trying to get through the text. Example: the works of Judy Mikovits.
Come to think of it, that’s probably a public service. You don’t want to exacerbate feeble-mindedness already rife within your audience.
@ F68.10
Do you read what I write? I made it clear that I NEVER rely on clinical trials run by or paid for by pharmaceutical industry. I follow the advice of consumer group Public Citizen to wait seven years before using a new drug unless dying and no choice. Why? Simple, because gives time for data to accumulate around the world, to be published by researchers, Departments of Health, etc. in numerous nations. And independent reviews, on the whole, have found that drug industry run or funded research does exaggerate effectiveness and lower adverse events; but that, on the whole, the benefits to harms ratio was usually accurate, just exaggerated. I am a skeptic, not a cynic.
Over the past 30 years over 25 drugs have been removed from the market by the FDA, usually within seven years; but a few took longer; but one could find good studies that found they should be removed and one could go to Public Citizen’s website and find most of them. Public Citizen actually either fought against approval of many of the 25 later removed or after on the market for some time and more data available pressured FDA to remove.
And now I have wasted enough time. I am old and have a pile of books and articles i want to read. I am currently re-reading, actually read an earlier edition, of one of the best books ever on the history of racism: Audrey Smedley (2015). Race in North American: Origin and Evolution of a World View (4th edition). She makes a compelling case that the U.S. is responsible for the most rigid cruel racism ever. I won’t go into details. And I’m also reading a new text on immunology. Much is review for me; but it is written for those who want to go into lab work so devotes more to the various lab procedures and techniques than other undergraduate immunology texts I have read: Kate Rittenhouse-Olson and Ernesto De Nardin (2019). Contemporary Clinical Immunology and Serology (2nd Edition). Pearson Books.
@ Joel
“@ F68.10 Do you read what I write? I made it clear that I NEVER rely on clinical trials run by or paid for by pharmaceutical industry.”
Wrong person.
@David
“So if I follow your ‘logic’, we should support and believe those who go against the ‘official consensus’? Don’t you think that some regard should be given to the quality of the arguments?”
You did not follow my logic. We should only care about the quality of arguments. But drug industry promoters always attack the expertise of those who go against the consensus.
@ Indie Rebel
And you continue your black and white view of the world. I do not own stock in any drug company, have never worked for one and I don’t attack the “expertise of those who go against the consensus”; but attack those who really don’t have an “expertise”. As you displayed above and then ignored my comments, you believe RFKs book demonstrates a quality of arguments, when, in fact, it is overall at example of dishonesty, cherry-picking, etc. So, your belief in the quality of an argument is based on your own ignorance and confirmation bias. I neither support nor am against the drug industry. As I’ve explained umpteen times and you are TOO STUPID to understand, I look at each drug, both industry run and sponsored research and studies NOT done or funded by industry and regularly check out Public Citizen’s Health Research website, which I am also a member and received regular e-mail updates. I also check out Swedish, Canadian, and other websites.
Name one person who has lost a medical license like you previously claimed.
I don’t think that anyone is disputing that people like Mullis have done some great work on the development of the PCR.
But I think that he has also caused much damage to the fight against AIDS and SARS-COV-2
@Narad
“So, you’re not checking the references?”
Of course I check references, and of course some will try to discredit him. I don’t have blind faith in anyone.
What? The references in the book, Madame Blavatsky. I mean, the picture of their literally crawling off the page to protest their confinement is a good one, but you’ve shown no sign of that sort of compositional talent.
Well Greg it looks like you beat up Joel to the point of him going back to his self imposed Island of Elba.
And of course after all is said and done the big drug company profits are still sky rocketing, the defenders here have Liz Warren to look after them. And go after the real profiteers, “the grocery stores”, after her air ball of going after Elon Musk for not paying his fair share of taxes then finding out he is going to pay 11 billion dollars in taxes. Of course by passing the big drug companies, because you know they fund most of congress.
The stupidity of the big pharma companies defenders on this and other website is to say the least appalling. If after 3 polio shots and it was found that they were ineffective against polio would you still trust a government to force you to take a 4th shot.
warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-calls-out-big-grocery-chains-for-putting-company-profits-over-customers
I’d love for you to delineate how it is you think Greg bested Joel. This will be a hoot!
@ Kaye West
“The stupidity of the big pharma companies defenders on this and other website is to say the least appalling.”
You’re not bringing out the best of you, must I say.
Or are you ?
@Kay West:
The Australian childhood vaccination schedule for polio vaccination is four shots. At 2, 4, 6 months and at 4 years.
DPT is 6 shots: 2, 4, 6, 18 months and 4 and 12-13 years.
It seems to be a common antivaxxer myth that multiple vaccinations being required for good immunity is somehow unusual.
https://www.health.gov.au/health-topics/immunisation/immunisation-throughout-life/national-immunisation-program-schedule
@ Kay West
You write: “Well Greg it looks like you beat up Joel to the point of him going back to his self imposed Island of Elba.”
Just how STUPID are you??? I refuted point by point everything Greg wrote; but it gets tiresome dealing with IDIOTS like you who NEVER learn, who don’t understand the basics and yet believe they are right. As for “self imposed Island of Elba”, how is being retired and enjoying reading even related to “self imposed.” I guess anyone who spends time at home reading in your book has a problem??? You really are a MORON! ! !
You just keep digging a bigger and bigger hole for yourself; but its great to know you support Greg’s stupid comments. I guess moronic birds of a feather stick together!
@ Greg
You write: “Vaccination also decreased production of the pro-inflammatory cytokines tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-1β following stimulation with either the standard SARS-CoV-2 strain or different Toll-like receptor ligands. So, every additional shot of Pfizer’s ‘miracle juice’ is shortening the time of an eventual visit to an oncologist.”
As I explained above, I am reading a recent new undergraduate immunology book, so I skipped to section on tumor necrosis factor. And I am also building up my library, so I did a web search. I found nine fairly recent papers. All basically state same thing, so I’ll just quote from one: “On one hand, TNF could be an endogenous tumor promoter, because TNF stimulates cancer cells’ growth, proliferation, invasion and metastasis, and tumor angiogenesis. On the other hand, TNF could be a cancer killer.” The article goes on to explain both, so sometimes, often, TNF actually stimulates cancer cells. Another article explains why the name “tumor necrosis factor” was a bad choice; but now difficult to change.
Your stupidity reminds me of modern people’s reaction when they hear that John Adams, a Puritan, told people he attended a Catholic mass and it was “awful.” Well, you would jump on that. One little problem, namely, 200 years ago “awful” meant full of awe, awe inspiring. Languages do change. But this is what you do, you see the words “tumor” and “necrosis” and jump to a conclusion. And, pointing this out to you will have NO effect. Just as with your fellow travelers in the world of morons, Kay West and Indie Rebel you will keep doing the same thing, that is, finding one or two articles, not really understanding them, even ignoring things in articles that contradict or qualify parts you quote and no matter how many times I and others point this out, you will as a group continue to dig ever deeper holes.
References:
Xia Wang and Yong Line (2008 Nov). Tumor necrosis factor and cancer, buddies or foes? Acta Pharmacol Sin.; 29(11): 1275-1288.
David S. Pisetsky (2014). Tumor necrosis factor: is it time to change the name? Arthritis Research & Therapy; 16: 108.
@ Kay West
As for your Climate Warming Denial, just another example of your immense moronic stupidity, PBS has a 3 part series on Greta Thunberg, a young Swede, who at 15 began campaigning to do something about Global Warming. The series includes numerous concrete examples that even you couldn’t refute; but, of course, would just ignore. One is a non-linear tipping point, namely, several icebergs responsible for supplying clean water to about 2 billion people have reduced in size so that they will NOT regenerate. At 15, Greta was more intelligent and insightful that you have ever been or ever will be. She has Asberger’s Syndrome and studies find that they often have superior intelligence, especially in math and science; but problems with social skills; but she does just fine. In fact, I wish I could have written speeches when I was her age as good as hers.
And you can find on YouTube a series called “Years of Living Dangerously” that documents global warming.
Finally, a book that documents that the same scientists that worked for the Tobacco Industry in fighting back against claims of tobacco’s harmful effects were the first scientists to work for the fossil fuel industry defending its profits in denying global warming. You really should read the book; but I know you won’t:’
Naomi Oreskes (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscure the Truth on Issues from Tobacco to Global Warming.
Or, maybe you also don’t believe tobacco is harmful to ones health???
@ Kay West
You write: “If after 3 polio shots and it was found that they were ineffective against polio would you still trust a government to force you to take a 4th shot.”
Actually they were reasonably effective, against serotype 1 about 70%, against serotypes 2 and 3 about 90% effective. However, their effectiveness waned after a few years, so a booster was called for. If you had lived through polio as I did, literally knowing kids with steel brace on one leg, in wheel chairs, meeting a man in an iron lung who had been in it over 30 years, knowing several people who suffered post-polio syndrome, then, maybe; but I doubt it, you would see getting three shots, then a few years later, a booster, not negative. However, the Salk vaccine was succeeded by the Sabin oral vaccines which only needed to be taken once, then maybe a booster decades later, maybe? However, the Sabin vaccine did cause half dozen cases per year; but prevented 20,000. And since 1990s, an enhanced version of the Salk Vaccine confers 99+% protection; but interestingly, a Swedish polio vaccine developed around same time as Salk’s by Sven Gard, actually confers 99+% protection, so Sweden NEVER went over to the oral and has NOT had a single-case of polio since its introduction and, I’m sure you are unaware; but historically Sweden experienced the first major polio epidemics, starting in the 19th Century.
So, wrong as usual, “not ineffective against polio” but not as good as would have been hoped for. As I’ve pointed out over and over, seatbelts only reduce deaths and serious injury by about 50%, which is far lower than even Salk’s vaccine. I own and have read over 12 books on history of polio and currently have in a folder on my desktop, with subcategory folders, well over 1,000 papers on polio and have either read or skimmed most of them.
You just keep making statements based on ignorance. Don’t you ever learn??? NOPE!
You attack me for spending lots of time at home reading, which is why I really understand various topics and can easily refute what you write. So, how much time do you devote to reading? And, by the way, though I’ve stated before, I carefully read opposing viewpoints and based on strong understanding of the underlying sciences, determine which is more credible!
And, has modern day Nazism not backfired? Goverment around the world jumped on the vaccine passport and mandates bandwagon, arguing that they needed to ‘persecute’ the unvaxxed to protect society. They did so even when it was becoming glaring obvious that, with the vaccines waning protection and emerging vaccine resistant strains, the persecution was fruitless. Worse, it was harmful in that it provided a perfect incubator for the vaxxed masses to spread the virus and propagate the pandemic.
And, now that Omicron has arrived, the damn door has essentially busted open and with the storm of cases flooding through. It’s humorous now watching governments attempt to pivot with testing. No doubt though, as beaten as they are, they still hold a lot of enmity for the non–compliant, unvaxxed ‘Jews’. Will the pointless persecution now continue for the sole sake of spite?
https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/omicron-actually-undermines-government-interests-in-vaccine-mandates/
James Phillips? That’s rich — from the Heritage Foundation to Gerg’s gob. He loses little time in building the straw man here. But time is short when an invention awaits! He’s discovered the extremely subtle and powerful analytical tool known as…. the x‑y plane.
He seems to enjoy holding forth on things he doesn’t understand and then trying to pin it on somebody else and hoping that nobody notices (or cares). I don’t have the energy for his take on Employment Division v. Smith; it seems like the least likely entry to make a neocon hash out of.
@ Greg
“And, has modern day Nazism not backfired? Goverment around the world jumped on the vaccine passport and mandates bandwagon, arguing that they needed to ‘persecute’ the unvaxxed to protect society.”
Poor poor poor unvaxxed people…
Seriously, this is no nazism.
In fact, in my country, medical doctors are pushing not to treat unvaxxed patients coming in for covid.
I am opposing that.
See ? People like me do care for you poor poor poor unvaxxed victims…
But if you really insist that you want Zyklon B instead of remdesivir, well, I’ll have to consider your request with due diligence.
You’re utterly nuts.
@ Greg
You are one SICK SICK SICK person. As usual you ignore how many hospitalizations were prevented, how many cases of long covid were prevented, how many deaths were prevented by the vaccines. And, despite what you choose to believe, those vaccinated and received boosters are still protected against severe covid, even from the Omicron. Yep, it is persecution for a government, based on solid science, not idiots like you, to try to protect its citizens.
And no comment about just how wrong you were about tumor necrosis factor, which can actually facilitate cancer in a number of instances?
As I said, if you used the word “Nazi” in front of me, you would end up in the hospital you descipable ASSHOLE. Nazis were a death cult. Even if the vaccines didn’t work as well as they do, mandating was based on trying to save lives, not just those being vaccinated; but those who can’t or who the vaccine didn’t take effect. Are you so STUPID you don’t understand the difference. As I wrote above, your hate of vaccines, your continuous hoping they will fail, can only mean that basically you want to see people suffer and die.
I wonder what your reaction would be if someone you care about, who took your advice to not get vaccinated, contracted covid, severe covid . . .? I’m sure in your sick mind you would somehow rationalize your way out of any guilt
Of course not. Gerg’s categorical imperative is to always be in control. When that’s no longer possible, it simply gets repressed.
It’s true, a lot of immunology processes are ambiguous in that they can both ways. That’s why often we need the real world experience to decide.
With Covid, that real world experience is suggesting that the vaccinated are handling reinfections poorly, and pointing to their innate immunity being compromised And, if that immunity is having difficulties handling a viral pathogen, then there is every reason to suspect that it will have similar difficulties handling a canceousr one. Indeed, we should be suspicious that the diminished toll-like cytokines are contributing to the progression of pathogens, including cancers.
So, on this point, I will turn things back over to you, Joel, and have you address what appears to be an elephant in the room for you guys. Why are vaccinees doing such a poor job with reinfections. It seems that they are benefitting little from exposure. Why?
Do you have any data for ‘that real world experience is suggesting that the vaccinated are handling reinfections poorly’?
@Greg& David
…especially since my actual real world experience says the exact opposite is true.
If only one could run a car on Billy Madison moments.
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH?!
And, as we wait on Joel, I came across this theory. If it had more supporting evidence I would welcome it more, but I also have an inkling that I should not reject it
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/omicron-is-not-normal
Or, it could’ve been done on purpose to achieve the benefit of Omicron that is now being touted — a milder but more infectious strain that may end up escaping the antegenic sin and enhancing immunity.
Between the “DRASTIC” poseurs* and random idiots opining on phylogenic trees, that’s one hell of an overflowing litter box. (“Passaged repeatedly through convalescent or vaccinated plasma,” indeed. Now, that has production scale from a mystery lab in Durban written all over it.)
*And of course, Gerg is so blank that he can’t even play in the games. All that’s left is the question whether to vomit or regurgitate.
And, we are still waiting on, Joel. Who now doubts me when I say he is just a punk, and all he does is fake indignation as he huffs and puffs.
Joel, again, even without one of your 1000 words dissertation, surely you can shed some light on why vaccinees are struggling to acquire lasting immunity after natural exposure to the virus. What defect is there in their immunity that is preventing this?
Ok, so maybe releasing Omicron was a calculated risk to break Delta and free immunity. Yet, even with a milder strain, were all the risks taken into account such as ADE? Did anyone seriously reflect on the dangers of having a super virulent strain replicating and mutating wildly, and as it studied ‘creative’ ways to infect?
@Omicron strain wa released ? As probably as growing a virus in blood plasma.
And of course non vaccinated cannot handle omicron either. This is what vaccine efficiency means.
@ Greg
Rather than vaccines, why don’t you actually focus on aspects of United States that do make it a neo-Nazi state:
4% of world’s population with 25% of prisoners
Credible estimates that up to 100,000 TOTALLY INNOCENT; but our CRIMINAL criminal justice systems bends over backwards NOT to overturn convictions, takes Innocence Projects sometimes 10 – 15 years.
When convictions finally overturned and discovered beyond shadow of doubt that police and/or prosecutors falsified evidence, suborned perjury and/or withheld clearly exculpatory evidence, almost NEVER are they held accountable. In fact Supreme Court ruled one of those who proved both innocent and falsified evidence, etc could NOT even sue the DA and Houston, Texas had a prosecutor who won elections based on his conviction record, found out he withheld clearly exculpatory evidence, Texas law does not allow one to sue, even after they are out of office.
Draconian prison terms. Someone caught selling or even possessing small amounts of marijuana or cocaine in late teens, then shoplifts $100 worth of goods given 25 to life. There are certain criminals who commit horrendous crimes and long prison terms called for; but vast majority of those getting such three strike terms are NOT.
Overcrowded brutal prison conditions.
Once released, can’t return to family if they live in Section 8 housing, difficult to get a job, marked for life. So much for giving people a second chance. And we, as far as I can find, are only nation with for-profit prison system.
Police killing and severely injuring more people per capita by far than any other advanced democracy. Blacks get it worst by far; but we have long history of brutality.
We have overthrown more democracies since World War II, supported some of the most brutal dictatorship, killed as estimated 2 million non-combatants, claiming accident; but we went to wars based on lies. One example is overthrow of Iranian democracy with result we gained 40% oil rights. Conservative estimates puts at least 20 million non-combatants, men, women, and CHILDREN killed by American military, etc. since World War II and many more disabled, brutalized, etc.
So, what did the Nazis do? Brutal treatment of own population and brutal military against other nations.
So, if you want to focus on Nazis, above are ALL examples of contempt for the value and dignity of human beings, whereas, despite your immense stupidity, grasping at straws, believing unscientific claims, about dangers of vaccines, the overwhelming majority of those supporting vaccines, even mandates, are doing so for the exact opposite of all the above, that is, to save lives, to prevent suffering, etc.
Joel, I’ll freely admit, I take no joy in calling you guys Nazis. If you don’t want me to, then you guys should stop Nazism-ing!
What, Joel, you are still harping on the virtues of your brand of Nazism? Joel, before the vaccines came out, Fauci said mandates were inappropriate and the government was not prepared to go there; Biden said the same. Here in Ontario, Canada, our Provincial Leader, Doug Ford, initially scoffed at them, suggesting that they would lead to a segregated society. Ford eventually caved, but he expressed his loathing for buckling, and describing them as a necessary evil.
Joel, for something so kosher, why all the initial discomfort and unease? You can continue to lie to yourself, Joel, but we all know why? They are a return to one of the nastiest place in our history, and no denying it can soothe the conscience; at least, not the conscience of any thinking person.
Joel, I haven’t taken any shots of Pfizer’s ‘miraculous juice’. As the research suggest, being unvaxxed, I am at a lower risk of contracting Omicron. Now, Joel, Imagine in the craziest twist of fate governments were to move to ‘protect’ unvaxxed people like me by firing at-risk vaxxed individuals and also denying them access to their communities? How would I feel about that? I would also have a f-ing problem with it! Wrong is wrong, Joel.
Forcing you to protect yourself or others is not Nazism. Nazism is about murdering millions of people
In other news…
AoA reports that Dr Fauci called RFK jr “pazzo” ( crazy) ; actually, Fauci said the anti-vaxxer was a ” deeply disturbed individual” who was probably not “malicious”.
Attacks by Kennedy and others may incite anti-vaxxers and Fauci already has been receiving death threats and requires security.
Hearing what activists routinely say about vaccine advocates ( including Orac and his minions), I’m surprised that we haven’t seen anyone get hurt yet. If you continually
ramp up hatred for “pharma crimes” involving the “destruction of children” by corporate greed and its paid “assassins” you can be sure that somewhere an even more deeply disturbed person, imagining themself a hero, might take aggressive action. We’ve seen this turn of events following the pizzeria/ child trafficking CT drummed up by political opponents of liberal politicians in Washington, DC.
Shouldn’t Kennedy know this? After all, he’s a lawyer and has lost family members to violence? BIgtree and Adams are even more blatant in their calls for retribution for these crimes or for extreme measures to protect children from vaccination.
“Protect children from vaccination” ? Did I really type that?
@Denice Walter
So, RFK Jr. is “deeply disturbed” because Fauci, the target of his criticism, says so.
And RFK Jr. should stop complaining about drug industry corruption because it might cause violence. Right. Let’s all do exactly whatever Fauci demands.
Actually Robert Kennedy Jr just want file as many lawsuits as possible, Perhaps Fauci should call him “money driven trial lawyer” instead.
Antivax violence is a separate thing. Threating people is bad, Antivaxxers should stop it,.
@David
“I don’t think that anyone is disputing that people like Mullis have done some great work on the development of the PCR.
But I think that he has also caused much damage to the fight against AIDS and SARS-COV-2”
So Mullis should have not told the truth, as he saw it, because in the opinions of some he was wrong? Is that how science should operate? All scientists who disagree with Fauci and his drug industry should be muzzled, regardless of how qualified they are?
@ Indie Rebel
“So Mullis should have not told the truth, as he saw it, because in the opinions of some he was wrong? Is that how science should operate?”
Mullis can say whatever he wants. And people like us can say what they want we want. Like bashing him verbally like we would beat a dead horse. i.e. fanatically.
“All scientists who disagree with Fauci and his drug industry should be muzzled, regardless of how qualified they are?”
They should be criticised is they are wrong. And they should have no wiggle room left to spout nonsense. They should be cornered in their own absurdity.
No need to put them in jail.
Just highlight the ridicule that they embody.
Ridicule and shame are the Ultima Ratio of any civilised discussion when rationality is absent.
Oh, no — Thabo Mbeki needed a hobby to unwind with.
‘Truth’ is an interesting way to describe an ‘opinion’.
As I wrote, everyone, including Mullis, is entitled to their options. But it is always a problem when we give a person the title of ‘expert’, on those subjects of which they aren’t and don’t listen to those who are. Seems like a false ‘appeal to authority’, or maybe ‘appeal to false authority’… A sort of ‘authority shopping’.
If you want to believe in people like Mullis, great.
@ Indie Rebel
You have made it abundantly clear that you have made up your mind, that you are a rigid idiot. I posted four comments above which listed a number of flaws/lies, etc in RFK’s book, including in his references a book that denies the germ theory. He also refers to works by people who have, as Alex Jones, claimed the Newtown, Sandy Hook massacre of innocent children was a fake.
You write: “So, RFK Jr. is “deeply disturbed” because Fauci, the target of his criticism, says so.”
NOPE. Because anyone who understands the science and history of what RFK writes in his book, anyone who sees how he refers to right-wing conspiracy websites, to authors who denied AIDS, then died from it, who noticed that he literally contradicts himself, that his book is one hyperbolic paranoid presentation, could interpret that he is “deeply disturbed.”
You write: So Mullis should have not told the truth, as he saw it, because in the opinions of some he was wrong? Is that how science should operate? All scientists who disagree with Fauci and his drug industry should be muzzled, regardless of how qualified they are?”
No one muzzled him. You can find his papers, his interviews, etc easily. As for the “truth as he saw it,” not the opinion of some; but the overwhelming opinion of experts around the world that his opinions were wrong. He invented PCR. He was a biochemist, not an epidemiologist, not an infectious disease expert, and he gave NO indication that he devoted any time to learning the aforementioned disciplines, just as you have given NO indication that you understand even the basics of immunology, virology, epidemiology, public health, etc.
You just keep making an absolute fool of yourself and obviously are TOO STUPID to even realize this.
By the was, do you even know that Fauci, after receiving his MD, did advanced training in immunology and was the first to develop a treatment for vasculitis and he has an enormous publication record on infectious diseases? RFK is a lawyer and, again Mullis was a biochemist.
While I try NEVER to take absolute positions, after over 40 years of working in, taking courses, studying on my own (just started a new text on immunology both to refresh my memory and learn any new developments, etc.) the overwhelming studies allow me to take a position, not with g-d-like certainty; but with a high level of confidence.
@F68.10
“Mullis can say whatever he wants. And people like us can say what they want we want. Like bashing him verbally like we would beat a dead horse. i.e. fanatically.”
And, to you, that is a rational way to debate someone you disagree with?
“No need to put them in jail.
Just highlight the ridicule that they embody.”
But they should be canceled and censored?
“Ridicule and shame are the Ultima Ratio of any civilised discussion when rationality is absent.”
Maybe you never tried to understand the scientists you don’t agree with. Maybe you just assume Fauci and his “consensus” is always correct.
Should science be ruled by an angry indoctrinated mob? Should the “winners” be the loudest and the angriest? Or should reason prevail?
Anyone who knows anything about Fauci’s history with AIDS would be very skeptical of anything he says, and would pay some attention to his detractors.
It is not about an authority figure. Mullis can indeed say what he wants, but it is not true just because Mullis says it.
@ Indie Rebel
“And, to you, that is a rational way to debate someone you disagree with?”
I deal rationally with rational people. Irrationally (well, not quite) with irrational people.
I’m a democrat with democrats. And a fascist with fascists. With real fascists. Not with people that are merely branded as fascists.
And irrationality is intellectual fascism.
“But they should be canceled and censored?”
As long as it is NOT THE STATE that censors, I support the right of civil society not to give platforms. Yes.
I also support the right of people like Peter Boghossian to set up universities that could not care less about the irrational cancel culture that has seized the US.
That’s a called a free country. A country where people have the right not to give a platform. And a country where people have the right to set up platforms. A country were people have the right to be stupid, but where stupid people have no right to enforce stupidity.
Which is unfortunately not quite the situation in France.
“Maybe you never tried to understand the scientists you don’t agree with.”
And maybe I did. Who knows ? You ?
“Should science be ruled by an angry indoctrinated mob? Should the “winners” be the loudest and the angriest? Or should reason prevail?”
Of course science should not be runned by angry and indoctrinated mobs. This is precisely the ideological line of this blog, haven’t you noticed ? Almost every blog post defends that line. So do I.
“Anyone who knows anything about Fauci’s history with AIDS would be very skeptical of anything he says, and would pay some attention to his detractors.”
Anyone who knows the story of AIDS understands that medicine cannot have the right to be unchallenged. In the US, you have that complicated story with Fauci. In France, we have the story of “contaminated blood”.
And we know what led to “contaminated blood” scandal: 1. Top down hierarchy of state controlled medicine (not talking about state financed but about control by the state of the hospital hierarchy) 2. tests for AIDS were sold by a US company, and we only wanted pure-blood french tests.
So: such stories materialise differently from country to country. And I’m much more hateful to policies in psychiatry that locked up homosexuals than I am with the AIDS story. Because onions have layers.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
Montagnier found HIV in some AIDS patients, but said he did not know if it was the cause. Gallo stole the virus from Montagnier, claiming it was his own discovery, and declared that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS. There was no scientific research to support that claim. But Fauci was convinced, with NO evidence, and from then on no one was allowed to doubt the theory.
Gallo was notorious for being unethical, yet his proclamation that HIV completely explains AIDS has gone unquestioned. Maybe because toxic drugs like AZT would be tremendously profitable for the drug industry.
AZT is KNOWN to be highly toxic and deadly, especially if taken for long periods. But other drugs and treatments were suppressed by Fauci, who refused to fund research on any of them. One short study, full of fraud and errors, was enough to nail down forever the idea that HIV is the only cause of AIDS, and AZT and similar drugs would be the cure.
Anyone who questions any part of the theory is labeled an AIDS denier and canceled and censored. Is that how science is supposed to work? Medical science is now governed almost entirely by power and money. Fauci is a medical tyrant.
I think that you give Fauci (and others) too much credit, or blame.
Do you think that in the almost 4 decades since the virus was isolated, no one was conducted any additional research on mechanisms or treatments? I guess you do
@ Indie Rebel
You are one SICK INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST SOB. There is overwhelming research that HIV causes AIDS, including electron microscopy, genetic sequencing, studies of how HIV destroys CD 4 cells, etc. And many anti-retrovirals have been researched and developed. Currently, in many cases only one pill per day is taken. And studies show that even some of those who had full blown AIDS several decades ago are still alive. What Gallo stated was and is NOT the reason, it is overwhelming research. And research has been done on the drugs that RFK claims were suppressed. Orac has written several articles that debunk belief ivermectin and/or hydroxychloroquine work with COVID.
I repeat and you ignore, you claim to have a PhD in Cognitive Psychology; but have NOT indicated any coursework, even reading of books on immunology, microbiology, epidemiology and you certainly haven’t been following AIDS like I have for almost 40 years, including working on an AIDS project years ago in a city department of public health. You, like several others who post comments on this website, just continue to make FOOLS of yourselves.
And you still haven’t acknowledged, addressed the four comments I made above that clearly show that RFKs book on Fauci is one big LIE; but it is clear you believe it.
There are Holocaust deniers, including some professors and historians. And just as with antivaxxers, a lot of followers/supporters.
There are Racists, believers that Black are intellectually, etc. inferior to Whites, including professors, even a number of books, including “The Bell Curves”, which has been totally refuted. Just two books: William H. Tucker. The Science and Politics of Racial Research and Stephen J Gould. The Mismeasure of Man.
And there are many who don’t believe in climate change, also with professors, etc who make the climate change denial. There is one excellent book by Naomi Oreskes Merchants of Doubt that documents that many of the scientists who worked for the tobacco industry fighting claims that tobacco is harmful then worked for the fossil fuel industry.
All three of the above have been refuted with massive studies; but supporters keep on going, so, I wouldn’t doubt that you maybe a believer in racial differences and/or climate change denier. The fact that overwhelming science in the latter two and overwhelming evidence supporting the Holocaust hasn’t changed a number of minds and you probably think it wrong if we don’t give them center stage.
Do you even understand that Fauci’s specialty is immunology? Do you even understand that he developed the first treatment for vasculitis?
Do you even know that RFK was arrested for possession of heroin, has been a drug user and has problems with alcohol? Did you know that his first wife committed suicide and probably at least partly because of him? Did you know he accuses Fauci of having made a fortune; but by law Fauci has to yearly give his income and worth to Congress? He is worth around $4 million, but experts have said that given his income and his wife’s that just investing a small percentage over his 40 years in broad stock funds could have resulted in this. On the other hand, RFK is worth between $50 and $60 million, not earned, just inherited.
Actually if one wants to criticize Fauci it should be that it took an OpEd in the New York Times and a group called ACT UP occupying his offices in 1990 to get him finally to sit down with actual AIDS sufferers and it was they who had been smuggling unapproved drugs, including AZT, etc. Yep, you keep harping on AZT being toxic; but keep ignoring that it prolonged lives and is still used in combinations with other drugs. Almost any drug on the market if overdoses or overused can be toxic. In fact, even vitamins. Too much iron, too much vitamin D, all can have harmful effects. JUST HOW STUPID AND DISHONEST ARE YOU? DON’T BOTHER ANSWERING. IT IS OBVIOUS
If you really have a PhD in cognitive psychology, tells me that at least some departments have rather low standards.
You still say that AZT is highly toxic. Can you cite a paper about its toxicity ?
Actually, multidrug followed, so research of cures was not suppressed.
There are other reasons to believe HIV causes AIDS. Most obvious is that after introduction of antiretroviral therapy, AIDS cases plummeted.
FOR THE LAST TIME:
AZT is VERY safe. It is the ONLY drug we use in pregnant women. Have for YEARS.
STOP IT.
STOP IT.
STOP IT.
Answer my gd question:
Name ONE doctor who lost his/her license LIKE YOU CLAIMED.
@David
“Do you think that in the almost 4 decades since the virus was isolated, no one was conducted any additional research on mechanisms or treatments?”
No researcher who questions the HIV/AIDS orthodoxy can get funding.
Okay, I believe you.
ClinicalTrials.gov reports 24 studies about HIV and Vitamin C. Is this a part of mainstream narrative ?
@ Greg
You write: “Joel, I’ll freely admit, I take no joy in calling you guys Nazis. If you don’t want me to, then you guys should stop Nazism-ing!
What, Joel, you are still harping on the virtues of your brand of Nazism? Joel, before the vaccines came out, Fauci said mandates were inappropriate and the government was not prepared to go there;”
YOU REALLY ARE ONE DISHONEST STUPID LOW LIFE. AS I CLEARLY EXPLAINED, NAZISM WAS A DEATH CULT. THEY INTENTIONALLY ABUSED AND KILLED PEOPLE, NOT JUST JEWS; BUT ROMA AND SLAVS, THOSE WITH DOWN SYNDROME, ETC. THOSE PROMOTING VACCINES ARE A LIFE CULT. YOU MAY NOT BELIEVE THE VACCINES WORK BECAUSE YOU ARE INCREDIBLY STUPID; BUT WE DO AND WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE LIVES. CALLING EFFORTS TO SAVE LIVES NAZISM IS DISGUSTING. AS I ALREADY WROTE, IT INSULTS THE MEMORIES OF ALL THOSE WHO DIED AT THE HANDS OF THE NAZIS AND THEIR SURVIVING FAMILIES.
As for what Fauci said early on, as he has made clear, as the facts change, as more information/data develops he has to adapt. I lived in Canada from 1968 to 1970, earned an M.A. in social psychology from Carleton University. Actually met Pierre Elliot Trudeau when he came to speak there. Also visited Montreal and Toronto with friend/classmates. I kept in touch with three of them for over 40 years; but now they are gone. However, I promise you that they would agree with me that you are a moron. I’ve asked and you NEVER respond, have you ever studied immunology, microbiology, epidemiology or even on your own read a textbook? Have you ever studied, read the history of any vaccine-preventable disease, e.g., smallpox, polio, etc.? Have you ever taken a course or read a book on genetics? NOPE; but you are against the vaccine and as I’ve written before, you indicate a hope/glee that vaccinated people will suffer and die, that the vaccines won’t work. If anyone belongs to a death cult, Nazi sympathizer, I would guess it is YOU!
By the way, though far from perfect, Canada is a better nation than the U.S. Universal health care, though haven’t completely fulfilled Tommy Douglas goal, that is, your system doesn’t cover dental, outpatient drugs, home health care, and nursing homes, though some Provinces do cover some or all of these, e.g., dental for kids, outpatient drugs for seniors, etc. And Canada doesn’t have the death penalty, a barbaric procedure. And, you don’t have a huge number of incarcerated and draconian sentences. And, as Sweden, on a per capita basis you have taken far more refugees from Central American, Africa, and Middle East than U.S., yet have a much lower violent crimes rate and your police, though has happened, not trigger happy, killing even unarmed children as our police do.
Too bad that a nation I admire for many reasons, as all nations, has idiots like you! !
@Aarno Syvänen
“It is not about an authority figure. Mullis can indeed say what he wants, but it is not true just because Mullis says it.”
Why do you think everything Fauci says is true? He has based many pronouncements on opinion only, without any research.
And Mullis died before the pandemic. If he were still alive, and criticizing Fauci, you can be sure he would be cancelled and censored.
If you’re going to keep referring to Mullis, you should give him his proper title.
After all, Mullis reported that the glowing raccoon who talked to him addressed him as “doctor”.
Am I the only one who finds this neologism to be at roughly the tween level of verbal expression?
Why do you think that I think that everything Fauci says is true ? I actually said that plummeting of AIDS cases after introduction of multidrug therapy shows that HIV causes AIDS.
AIDS activists then said try a drug and count corpses.Things were that bad.
Name one person who has been cancelled and censored for criticizing Fauci.
For the fifth time: name one person who has lost his/her medical license LIKE YOU CLAIMED.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
At least I know that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation. Montagnier understands that, but Gallo, and Fauci, do not.
@ Indie Rebel
And you continue to ignore the fact that there exist thousands of studies showing HIV causes AIDS. And it isn’t Gallo and Fauci, it is thousands of scientists around the world; but, of course, you prefer those who don’t believe in climate change, etc. And, MORON, it isn’t correlation when one finds, literally shows, for instance, how HIV kills CD 4 cells in vitro. I’m sure you will focus on this; but it is just one example of the numerous approaches that have been done. When you have so many, it isn’t about correlation. If someone is shot, dies, and I find the bullet in his/her brain, I am NOT doing a correlation study; but, maybe, it wasn’t the bullet that killed them, just coincidental???
By the way, AZT as toxic. Have you ever heard of chemotherapy for cancer. Do you know how it works? Only dividing cells are killed and because cancer cells divide more frequently, on average, than our normal cells, chemotherapy is used; but normal cells are harmed and mutations occur. So, most sane people opt for chemotherapy to prolong life, and in some case be cured of cancer; but the chemotherapy sometimes leads to mutations that sometimes lead to new cancers, usually 10 years or later. So, MORON, if you ever develop cancer, given how you emphasize toxicity and don’t consider benefits to harm ratio, please DON’T ALLOW TREATMENT WITH CHEMOTHERAPY. SAME WITH RADIATION TREATMENTS AND ALL CANCER TREATMENTS, ALL ARE TOXIC IN SOME FORM.
AND YOU, PROBABLY BASED ON RFK’S BOOK, GIVE FAR MORE POWER TO FAUCI THAN HE HAS AND ALSO RELY ON RFK’S BOOK FOR YOUR BELIEFS IN ALTERNATIVES TO HIV CAUSING AIDS, ETC. And you continue to ignore the four comments above where I showed just how error ridden his book is and how many of his references were to HIV deniers who died of AIDS and/or to conspiracy theories who reject, among other things, the Sandy Hook, Newtown massacre of innocent children. And he includes in his references a book that denies the germ theory. YIKES! Or, maybe you agree with it.
Cowan (2020). The Contagion Myth – Why Viruses (Including Coronavirus) Are Not the Cause of Disease
Yep, you just keep making a bigger and bigger fool of yourself. And, for the vast majority of us, open-minded who understand public health, immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, etc. and have followed Fauci’s career, he is an excellent example; but as I explained above, he did delay acting more on AIDS and it was AIDS activists who pushed AZT, etc.
Just to remind you, given your inability to actually understand/digest what I write, if you or a loved one ever gets cancer, do NOT accept chemotherapeutic treatment. Chemotherapy is toxic, just as AZT, that is the benefit to harm ratio favors both AND again, AZT is still be using in combination with other anti-retrovirals.
Oh, besides the thousands of researchers world-wide, Gallo and Fauci’s opinion, despite what you care to believe, on HIV and AIDS is correct! ! !
Montagnier also “understands” that DNA can teleport, through a combination of being little LF transmitters and quantum quantum something.
Both anti-vaxxers and hiv/ aids denialists have claimed that their core messages and bodies of research have been suppressed for decades yet why are we able to read/ hear in great detail about Wakefield, RFK jr, Del Bigtree as well as Peter Duesberg, Celia Farber, Mullis, Mbeki, the Perth Group and lesser luminaries ?
Their beliefs have also been popularised by alt med consolidators like Mike Adams, Gary Null and Joe Mercola who basically oppose standard SBM as practised throughout the world as a means of selling their products which are primarily supplements, health foods and information ( actually, usually misinformation or disinformation) that denies the usefulness or safety of meds whilst simultaneously exaggerating the efficacy of natural products/ foods and lifestyle modification in addressing serious illness. They misrepresent what SBM advocates about diet and exercise as if SBM makes no meaningful comment upon them.
As Joel and others here mention, hiv/ aids denialism has had devastating effects in the RSA as well as in the gay community {which have been examined by Seth Kalichman ( US) and NIcoli Nattrass ( RSA)**} concerning how these beliefs when adopted by governments or individuals lead to disastrous results in public health. If you learn that a virus is harmless or an illness is caused by “additional” factors you may not behave in a manner that combats it effectively.
We are experiencing a similar situation about Covid: alt med advocates tell us that the virus isn’t all that bad, that people died of pre-existing conditions, that vaccines or SB treatments don’t work whilst folklore and untested meds/ supplements do. It’s a parallel situation that affects the entire population.
** their work is easy to find
@Denice Walter
“If you learn that a virus is harmless or an illness is caused by “additional” factors you may not behave in a manner that combats it effectively.”
That is why questioning the orthodoxy is considered “dangerous misinformation,” and dissenting scientists can’t get funding. Totalitarian rulers alway have good excuses for their intolerance of dissent.
@ Denise
You write: “Peter Duesberg, Celia Farber, Mullis, Mbeki, the Perth Group.”
RFK bases much of his denial of HIV and AIDS on Duesberg; but also discusses the Perth Group. What he doesn’t know is that the Perth Group put up a reward for anyone who could even prove the existence of the HIV virus. Guess who applied for the reward, using electron microscopic photos? Yep, Duesberg and the Perth Group denied his claim. So RFK cites a group that questions Duesberg’s credibility. Don’t you love it and as I wrote above, RFK literally contradicts himself in his book on several key points.
Now back to reading Audrey Smedley’s “Race in North America: Origins and Evolution of a Worldview (4th Edition). I read an earlier edition years ago. Excellent debunking of race as a biological entity. Of course, as opposed to people like Indie Rebel, I have read probably 20 books and hundreds of papers; but Smedley’s book is one of the best.
@ Joel:
Because we both study pseudoscience I thought you might “enjoy” the following film – the curiously named The Cost of Denial by the even more curiously named Society for Independent Investigative Journalism which is available on Brand New Tube ( banned on YouTube, I suppose) which examines what denialists believe about hiv/aids and its treatment. It is dedicated to the memory of Kary Mullis. 1:24 length.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
I see, anyone who doesn’t agree with you is a MORON. Of course.
At least someone here finally admitted AZT is toxic. Chemotherapy for cancer is only given temporarily, but AZT, plus similar drugs, is given for life. And it is given to some who are HIV positive but without AIDS-defining symptoms. And it is given to some who are merely at risk for HIV infection. AZT gradually destroys the body.
You are very wrong. There is NO proof that HIV alone explains AIDS. I have read many different sources on this, years ago. I am not going just by the RFK book, but he gives many sources also.
Fauci is a bully who forces his opinions on the world. He is more interested in his friends the drug companies than in public health.
And I have no reason to answer someone whose best “argument” is to call someone stupid. So don’t bother writing any more comments to me.
Do everyone a favor and go try it out.
Well, except for neonates if things go right.
EXACTLY! Thank you, Narad.
She’s been avoiding that one since you first pointed it out. I have little doubt that anything different will happen this time, but poking her narcissistic superiority complex seems to fall into the category of chores such as cleaning the litter box.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “And I have no reason to answer someone whose best “argument” is to call someone stupid.”
My best “argument???” I have written detailed comments, including often references; but when you over and over ignore what I write, continue to make claims without any knowledge of the basics of immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, history of vaccine-preventable diseases, etc. your responses indicate either immense intellectual dishonesty and/or pure stupidity. But I include such terms along with detailed arguments, so, just one more example of your STUPIDITY to focus on one or two words as if they represent the bulk of my comments.
I take it that you’ve never heard of Paracelsus, either. Go find the NOAEL or LOAEL.
Freaking fistula.
You of course can tell us about those other causes. Read papers not books,
HIV causes AIDS, to prevent this, drug therapy is started early. Preventing the infection is even better, of course,
Actually AIDS activists bullied Fauci, because things were really bad
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “At least I know that correlation doesn’t necessarily mean causation.”
Nope, you don’t. Let’s start with HIV. It would be IMPOSSIBLE to ethically design a placebo-controlled double-blind randomized clinical trial, injecting one group with HIV, the other with a Placebo, then follow them up for, say, 10 years, doing blood analyses, DNA sequencing, etc. So, we are left with other designs, cohort, case-control, and quasi-experimental ones. Not that you will understand; but every design, even placebo-controlled double-blind randomized trials have the possibility of some unmeasured cofactor affecting the results. If one compiles a number of various designed studies, then the probability that one or more unmeasured cofactors would have affected the outcomes in one or the other direction diminishes.
Multivariate correlation can be algebraically transformed into a multiple regression equation, so the math is really the same, just choice of formula determines if one makes a “causal” analysis or not. And causal analysis, except maybe in physics and chemistry, is not near perfect in social and behavioral sciences. It is based on a number of assumptions, Bradford-Hill list one set; but tone of their criteria, temporality is the weakest because of the logical fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Prompter Hoc. We draw “causal” conclusions based on the overwhelming evidence. And we act on this. Historically, before scientific method became as standardized, objective, and strong as it is today, some so-called “scientific” facts were found to be wrong; but that happens less today. With literally hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world, some funded by industries, some by government grants, some by private foundations, one can look closely at the individual designs, weigh them based on methodology, and develop a conclusion.
Nope, you don’t understand the difference between correlation and causation. The choice of statistics and whether one uses a set of criteria to make a decision; but such criteria don’t “prove” causation. Only in strictly controlled lab conditions, e.g., physics and chemistry, can one attempt real causal conclusions; but even these have the caveat that in the “real” world other variables that are often there will affect the outcome. Below are some references that an idiot like you will never read. I have two shelves of books on Causal Theories, Philosophy of Science, etc. The best book ever is Mervyn Susser’s below:
Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley (1962). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research.
Thomas D. Cook and Donald T. Campbell (1979). Quasi-Experimentation: Design & Analysis Issues for Field Settings.
Mervyn Susser (1973). Causal Thinking in the Health Sciences: Concepts and Strategies in Epidemiology.
David A. Kenny (1979). Correlation and Causality
@ Indie Rebel
You are either stupid or just plan intellectually dishonest. I’ve asked you if you have ever studied immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, history of vaccine-prevented infectious diseases; but you haven’t answered and you give NO indication you have.
And calling Fauci a bully, forcing his opinion on the world, just plain STUPID. Basically, you are claiming the scientists, public health officials, some quite well-known for their research, submit to one man. YIKES!
You write: “At least someone here finally admitted AZT is toxic. Chemotherapy for cancer is only given temporarily, but AZT, plus similar drugs, is given for life. And it is given to some who are HIV positive but without AIDS-defining symptoms. And it is given to some who are merely at risk for HIV infection. AZT gradually destroys the body.
You are very wrong. There is NO proof that HIV alone explains AIDS. I have read many different sources on this, years ago. I am not going just by the RFK book, but he gives many sources also.
Proof again that you either don’t really read what I write, don’t understand or are just plain intellectually dishonest. I have several times mentioned that AZT can be toxic. And MORON, the point I was making is that most things can be toxic, depending on dose, duration, and other factors. And you ignore over and over the overwhelming science that even people who had FULL BLOWN AIDS, first given AZT, then other retrovirals, sometimes including AZT in the cocktail, are alive, some more than 20 years. And you ignore that FULL BLOWN AIDS resulted in deaths within probably less than a year if not treated.
And, you keep saying there is not proof that HIV alone explains AIDS. I guess it depends what you mean by AIDS. Yep, prior to HIV a few people did develop Kaposis sarcoma, a few pneumocystis jirovici, etc. I could say that microbes have not been proven to be the only cause of pneumonia. One can develop pneumonia from chemicals/toxins in environment; but the overwhelming majority of cases, probably 98% are caused by either viruses, bacteria, or sometimes fungi or protozoa. So, nope, HIV alone doesn’t explain individual “diseases” that are included in AIDS; but when one develops over time several of these, totally otherwise unrelated then the verdict is sound.
Believe what you choose to believe. It is obvious that you really don’t understand the science underlying AIDS. Do you even know the difference, for instance, between a positive single-stranded RNA virus, a negative single-stranded RNA virus and a retrovirus??? Do you know what a CD 4 T-cell is? What a CE 8 T-cell is? What about neutrophils, macrophages, and dendritic cells? If you don’t understand the immune system then you can’t understand AIDS
I consider myself reasonably intelligent and well-educated; but if someone asked me to look over half dozen plans for a bridge over a river, I could take a position of which the best design. I could, of course, say which I thought most aesthetically pleasing, a subjective opinion. Why can’t I decide which bridge best? Because I have NEVER studies structural engineering. I could probably follow the math as I’ve had differential and integral calculus, analytic geometry, etc. but no structural engineering. This is where we differ. When it comes to infectious diseases, vaccines, etc. you have given NO indication you understand the basics, so when you read, cherry-pick and/or selective memory, take a position it is the same as if I decided which bridge is best.
And I realize you don’t understand anything I just wrote. And once again, did you actually read my four comments about RFK’s book, all the errors, lies, paranoid style. And the vast majority of open-minded scientists around the world don’t submit to Fauci; but do respect him, not because he is always right; but because he is extremely knowledgeable and does change his position when knew data/studies come in.
You really should use your real name. Maybe one of your professors will read your comments and be ashamed he ever passed you! ! !
Joel:
I usually enjoy your comments, but this one has a major logical failure. You said, “ You are either stupid or just plan intellectually dishonest.”
.
The most reasonable assumption, based on posts so far, is that Idiot Rabble is both.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “You are very wrong. There is NO proof that HIV alone explains AIDS. I have read many different sources on this, years ago. I am not going just by the RFK book, but he gives many sources also.”
I’ve already several times mentioned RFK’s sources; however, I forgot to mention that several of them also subscribe to QAnon. I wouldn’t doubt that you do to???
So, AIDS going on 40 years. Please name one or two of other causes; but include several peer-reviewed articles for each and they must account for at least 10% of cases because, as I explained, 98% of pneumonias caused by microbes; but a few by chemical toxins, so I don’t doubt that one of the AIDS manifest conditions could be caused by something else; but that something else would also have to cause other manifested AIDS conditions. So, please list one or two causes that explain more than one AIDS manifest condition and give several peer-reviewed papers, not claims made by RFK and others. Again, AIDS has been going on for 40 years and NO, Anthony Fauci could NOT have stopped research around the world by scientists looking for other potential causes. If you really believe this then you are delusional.
Again, AZT, also used with HIV positive but no manifest AIDS condition, well oncologist usually remove surgically, sometimes follow-up with radiation and chemotherapy when Stage 1 cancers are found; but Stage 1 cancers can sometimes disappear, perhaps, action of immune system. We know that more than 50% of HIV positive will progress to full-blown AIDS, so, yep, we give anti-retrovirals to those with HIV who are still asymptomatic and these anti-retrovirals also reduce sexual and needle transmission to almost zero. And we have documented cases of not only those with full-blown AIDS who received AZT and other anti-retrovirals who are still alive decades later; but those who were asymptomatic as well. If you had Stage 1 cancer would you choose surgery, possibly radiation and chemotherapy or just “watchful waiting” which sometimes will end just fine; but could lead to Stages that therapy not successful with?
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
There never was a scientific reason for accepting the HIV hypothesis. Gallo stated it as a fact, and it quickly became Fauci’s unquestionable orthodoxy. Heretics were cancelled and their careers ruined. Fauci is a medical tyrant.
It seems to be human nature to follow and venerate leaders. Political democracy and science were supposed to correct for that, but the desire to follow is often too strong.
During this pandemic we are seeing Fauci venerated more than ever, and all heretics are called QAnon conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers. Fauci and Gates control the medical news, the medical research funding, and drug approvals. It is all completely corrupt.
His motives might be good, I do not know. Ruthless dictators have usually felt justified in their fight for whatever they were so sure the world needed. I think Fauci’s main problem is complete self-confidence, an inability to doubt his certainty once his mind is made up. And he also likes being adulated. He has declared that he IS science. In fact he is just the opposite of science.
Go test it out.
Well, you would certainly be the one to
identify withproject it, were that the case.Gallo actually isolated (somebody else’s) virus. Proving that it causes AIDS is another thing:
http://www.virusmyth.org/aids/hiv/wbscience88.htm
Duesberg is still a professor, so his career was not ruined
Fauci & Gates control news ? Fauci a ruthless dictator ?Now this is a conspiracy theory.
Link is to an old paper so it does not mention that after multidrug therapy, AIDS cases plummeted, Multidrug therapy targets multiple enzymes of HIV, so characterisation is quite good
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “There never was a scientific reason for accepting the HIV hypothesis. Gallo stated it as a fact, and it quickly became Fauci’s unquestionable orthodoxy. Heretics were cancelled and their careers ruined. Fauci is a medical tyrant . . .I think Fauci’s main problem is complete self-confidence, an inability to doubt his certainty once his mind is made up. And he also likes being adulated. He has declared that he IS science. In fact he is just the opposite of science.”
You just continue to repeat what your sick warped mind chooses to believe. You are absolutely WRONG about lack of scientific reasoning regarding HIV. And I have followed Fauci and read a number of his publications over the years. Actually he is the exact opposite of what you claim. He has even during the current crisis admitted that earlier positions, based on less data/info, were changed as more info/data developed. It is you who ignores what I and other write, you who ignores actual statements as aforementioned by Fauci.
And you write: “During this pandemic we are seeing Fauci venerated more than ever, and all heretics are called QAnon conspiracy theorists and anti-vaxxers. Fauci and Gates control the medical news, the medical research funding, and drug approvals. It is all completely corrupt.”
Not even close. As I’ve written, scientists around the world in different nations receive funding from multiple sources, including their respective governments. Yep, Fauci and Gates do control some large funds; but not near the total available worldwide. And they DON’T control the medical news. Are you totally insane. Medical news of literally thousands of journals, the websites of various nations public health departments, the websites and newsletters of medical organizations of many different nations, etc. And they certainly don’t control drug approvals. The European Medical Authority has approved some drugs which we haven’t and vice versa. And you can find different approvals in China, Japan, etc. Your extreme absolutist positions just document your immense intellectual dishonesty and/or stupidity. As for all heretics being called QAnon conspiracists. First, you are the one who introduced awhile ago “spiritual” and “alternative science”. And I pointed out that this blog is science based, so it doesn’t rule in or out the spiritual; but since it can’t be objectively scientifically measured, it doesn’t belong on this webpage. Heretic is a word related to religions not science. But it fits you perfectly. And scientists who disagree are not called QAnon conspiracist; but polls have shown a significant percent of public believe QAnon and given your continued refusal to accept overwhelming scientific evidence, your belief that RFK and others like him are mainly correct, it is you who probably believes in QAnon or something similar.
To continue such hate for one person, such dishonest attacks. YOU ARE ONE EXTREMELY SICK SICK SICK PERSON!
@ Indie Rebel
Given your continued absolutist extreme positions, your literal demonizing of Fauci, etc. and your previous pushing for “spiritual” I think it is quite obvious that you don’t think like a scientists. In essence, you see things in “religious” terms. You literally sound like some fundamentalist preachers. Much of what you write about how scientists view dissenters is actually your resorting to the psychological defense mechanism of projection, literally seeing in others what really is your essence. You really just keep making a fool of yourself because this is a scientific blog.
@ Joel
“Much of what you write about how scientists view dissenters is actually your resorting to the psychological defense mechanism of projection, literally seeing in others what really is your essence.”
Yeah. I’m getting used to these Bible thumper nuts.
On another blog, I’ve got a nutcase that’s been on my heels for TWO F-CKING BLOODY YEARS!!!
Trying to convert me… and claiming I am persecuting him because I do not yield to his repeated assaults.
Two years.
Every day he tries…
Every day I say NO.
And he does not understand. Which is not technically possible…
Indie Rebel is a variation of that concept.
As a South African, I have to mention something about Thabo Mbeki’s AIDS denialism.
It is somewhat inaccurate to say Mullins influenced Mbeki. Mbeki was an AIDS denialist even before he became president. He was also a very arrogant man.
Mbeki listened to Mullins, Shenton and other AIDS denialists because they told him what he wanted to hear.
Mullis, and others, provided ‘cover’ for those like Mbeki, acting as an enabler for his anti-HIV policies.
I wonder if Mullis would still hold his opinions, in view of the additional information we have over the last +20 years.
@ Julian Frost
“It is somewhat inaccurate to say Mullins influenced Mbeki. Mbeki was an AIDS denialist even before he became president.”
When I was in Malawi, people were claiming 1. AIDS is retribution from God for bad sexual behaviour 2. Malaria is a serious issue compared to AIDS.
This observation has always made me uneasy conflating AIDS denialism in Africa with other kinds of anti-science nonsense we hear in the western world.
Reporting of Mbeki’s AIDS denialism in western media always failed to address these issues. Namely that these people were more concerned by malaria than by AIDS. Because you do see people dropping dead from malaria. Not quite so when it comes to AIDS…
And you cannot expect the average Chewa dude in Malawi to be more science savvy than the western antivaxxers who spend their days and nights reading “scientific” literature and promoting intelligent design…
Something’s not right when you expect africans to be more science savvy than westerners…
Sorry F68.10, but I have to call this out.
Mbeki is not some ignorant backwards bumpkin. He is a highly intelligent man who holds a Master’s Degree in Economics from the University of Sussex. Much of the commentary around his AIDS denialism portrays him as someone led astray by clever liars from the West. This narrative is just not true, and I despise it. He was (and still is) a very arrogant man who assumed he knew more about the subject than actual virologists and immunologists. And there are clear examples of his denialism.
Mbeki was (and still is) an AIDS denialist whose arrogance and stubbornness led to delays rolling out antiretroviral treatments, which cost some 343,000 lives, and he should be held to account for that.
@ Julian Frost
I was not talking merely about Mbeki. You’re right about the person.
I was talking about what I faced when discussions on AIDS came up.
I do not give excuse to Mbeki on that topic. When you are in a position of responsibility, you do not have the excuse of ignorance.
But I just do not think you fight AIDS denialism in poor places like Malawi merely by pointing to the science. I do not see how that could be remotely useful.
The thing I remember about hospitals in Lesotho back in the days is that they were reusing the same needles on patients without proper sterilisation… you do not fight AIDS like this. I do not endorse the “AIDS is a consequence of poverty” meme, but, sometimes, when you see the medical infrastructures, yeah, fighting AIDS is a much deeper issue than fighting merely AIDS denialism.
Needless to say, we crossed the border to Ladybrand if we wanted to get into a hospital…
@ Julian Frost
“Much of the commentary around his AIDS denialism portrays him as someone led astray by clever liars from the West. This narrative is just not true, and I despise it.”
Oh! I get it.
I have seen the same narrative.
You’re seeing it from the SA perspective. And you say “No! He is not led astray by clever liars.”
I’m seeing from the Europe. And what struck me is the same narrative. As if Mbeki is a puppet of clever western liars. I have always rejected that same narrative as being western projection of their own problems with AIDS denialism onto Mbeki.
Mbeki was here shown as the disastrous effects of western AIDS denialism. I always said “No”. Context is different. Mbeki’s AIDS denialism is not the same as western AIDS denialism.
So I rejected the same narrative.
You point out that this narrative absolves Mbeki of responsibility. Which is true. I reject that idea, same as you.
But what I point out is that the West has gone berserk in believing that these denialisms are the same. They are using Mbeki as proof that western AIDS denialism is dangerous (which it is, but not for that reason). In short, they are instrumentalising african AIDS denialism to wage a western-centric battle against AIDS denialism. And, in the end, they are not as much concerned in that argument about the african-centric battle against AIDS denialism.
I noticed that hypocrisy from where I stand. A hypocrisy nested in a BAD argument. In the same narrative you reject.
Many experts have denied Fauci’s official story that HIV alone causes AIDS, and that AZT and similar drugs are the only effective treatment. Even Robert Gallo, who first suggested that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, later decided that other viruses are also involved. And Montagnier, who discovered HIV, agreed with Gallo. Duesberg was ridiculed and cancelled for thinking that amyl nitrite poppers cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, one of the defining AIDS diseases.
But by then Fauci had built his AIDS industry empire and it was not possible to turn back. He prevented all dissenting research from being funded. NOT for scientific reasons, simply because he said so. It was science by decree, which is not science at all.
Any AIDS researcher who wanted a successful career had to stick by the official story. If Gallo was right, and a herpes virus was a co-factor, there were already available off patent drugs. Others suspected mycoplasm, which can be treated with known antibiotics.
We will never find out if any of the opposing theories might be true, since they cannot be researched. And even if someone got the money to research them, their results could not be published.
That is how much power Fauci attained from the AIDS epidemic. AZT and similar drugs are known to be very toxic, especially if taken long term, and are very expensive. But that is the only path that AIDS research can take.
Fauci is a medical tyrant. Whether or not he believes his own deceptions, they have been deadly to free and democratic science.
Fauci’s reputation as the AIDS savior gave him the power he now has with the covid pandemic, and his actions have been similar. All treatments except those that can be patented by drug companies have been completely blocked. Fake research is done by the drug companies to “prove” they don’t work. For example, ivermectin is given too late in the infection and at the wrong doses, and without the other drugs and supplements it should be used with.
The big university’s medical departments are now owned by the big drug companies. Their role is NOT to make discoveries, but to churn out confirming research for the drug companies.
Duesberg was one of the leading cancer researchers in the world, and his research was brought to a permanent halt after he criticized Gallo’s AIDS=HIV hypothesis. This is ironic, since Gallo himself now doubts that hypothesis.
If your career depends on Fauci’s (and Gates’) good graces, I can see why you are enraged at anyone who criticizes them. But if not, I cannot imagine why you think what they are doing is ok. I can’t imagine how you trust a guy who says he IS science, and does not allow any free debate on medical science issues. He has made himself as infallible as the pope used to be, and all heretics are excommunicated.
Perhaps you can mention one alternative theory. Just to check what you have in your mind,
Why Fauci has a reputation of AIDS saviour ? Perhaps one reason is plummeting of AIDS cases ?
You may want to check ownership structure of various medical departments, More seriously there are many funding sources, some of them pushing integrated medicine. NIH itself has an entire department for this purpose
https://www.nccih.nih.gov/
Not that they can show nay results
Check Google Scholar for Duesberg papers.,
Fauci (or even less Gates) does not decide who get NIH grants, Tjey depend on peer review.,.
Demonstrate it. You do know where Pubmed is, right?
That is begging the question, verging on non sequitur. Then again, you keep failing to try it out for yourself.
And you “know” this how? Astral projection? Throwing a tantrum until the Universal Consciousness throws up its cosmic hands just to get rid of you?
Their role is NOT to make discoveries, but to churn out confirming research for the drug companies.
Oh, right — you’re totally ignorant of biomedical research. Nobody does basic research. Nobody does translational research. Everybody, everywhere does what a crazed, evasive, intellectually lazy, and provably dishonest shrew says.
STOP. STOP saying AZT is toxic. STOP IT. You have been told AGAIN AND AGAIN that it is very safe. STOP IT.
YOU ARE WRONG-FULL STOP. PERIOD.
Bottom line with you IR? You don’t know what the hell you are talking about. You just don’t. It would be like me getting on a master diesel mechanic forum and telling them how some part they have used safely for years is BAD and TOXIC to the truck or whatever-in-the-hell.
I worry for the sanity of any person who comes here, on a holiday nonetheless, and just plasters this place with BS. You don’t read any replies. You keep using hyperbolic speech and, when demands are made to justify that speech, you ignore them. I’d would be off skiing right now if I wasn’t stuck in the ICU because I drew the short straw this year. You are coming here on a holiday weekend ON PURPOSE to argue about things you don’t understand. Let that sink in.
Oh-and AZT costs about 23 cents a pill. And it’s free in the States under Ryan White.
And quite rightly, if so.
You know the vaccination experiment has hit the wall when the forerunner is now balking.
https://ca.news.yahoo.com/4th-covid-19-vaccine-dose-090000066.html
Of course nobody would do a booster shot without good reason
@Aarno Syvänen
“after multidrug therapy, AIDS cases plummeted”
Even if true, that is a correlation. You haven’t heard the old saying “Correlation does not necessarily mean causation?” I thought even non-scientists have heard that one by now. Many things could cause AIDS cases to decrease.
Yes Gallo stole HIV from Montagnier and tried to take credit for it. Then Gallo hypothesized that HIV causes AIDS, based on a correlation — HIV was found in some AIDS patients’ lymph nodes. There was no proof or good evidence of causation.
Fauci took that hypothesis and ran with it, building an enormous AIDS empire. From then on it was heresy to suggest HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS. He would not listen to any critics, not even Gallo, the originator of the theory!
Critics were considered not only heretics but murderers, because they might discourage AIDS patients from taking Fauci’s drugs.
By they way, most people never heard about the horrendous drug experiments that were done on poor minority children, who were supposedly HIV positive. Even if they were healthy, they were given toxic drugs that made them horribly sick and killed many. Fauci never became famous for that. Now you hear about his cruel beagle experiments, but his experiments on poor children were even worse.
Trump was often accused of being a sociopath, but I think Fauci is more deserving of that diagnosis.
Cut to the chase and buy a mirror.
Actually it is aquite good causation. A therapy was introduced, and AIDS cases went down. There is a meta-analysis for you:
Poorolajal J, Hooshmand E, Mahjub H, Esmailnasab N, Jenabi E. Survival rate of AIDS disease and mortality in HIV-infected patients: a meta-analysis. Public Health. 2016 Oct;139:3-12. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2016.05.004. Epub 2016 Jun 24. PMID: 27349729.
This kind of results are reason why HIV denialists are called murderers.
Did you read my link ? You course not. Gallo’s argument was based on AIDS transmission by blood transfusion and placenta.
Pathogens in lymph nodes is not a correlation. It is one Koch’s postulate.
You have still not found data about HIV drug toxicity. You cannot find data about your “horrible drug experiment” either,I am sure,
@ Indie Rebel
You sound like a broken record. “Many experts???” Give some of their names and references to what they said. Yep, Duesberg was one of the leading cancer researchers looking at the genetics of cancer and he did discover the first retrovirus causing cancer in chickens, which, according to RFK he may not any longer support. But he wouldn’t be the first researcher who went off the deep end. And you want to believe him, not the thousands who disagree with him. And you do this because of your beliefs. As I’ve stated over and over, you don’t understand immunology, microbiology, virology, epidemiology, so your position is based on what you choose to believe.
It is a waste of time to respond to you. It is beyond stupid to make statements such as “I can’t imagine how you trust a guy who says he IS science, and does not allow any free debate on medical science issues. He has made himself as infallible as the pope used to be, and all heretics are excommunicated.”
First, maybe he said he is science once. People misspeak all the time; but people like you ignore everything else they say and focus on it; but maybe he NEVER said it. I know, having followed him that he has stated numerous times that he goes with the science, something religious fanatics like you don’t understand. And despite your absolute dishonesty, he has publicly changed his position and stated he goes with the science.
You are a broken record. Either give concrete examples and references or stop making a fool of yourself.
Here is one paper from 2009 that gives a summary of research showing HIV cause of AIDS:
U.S. Nationals Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (2009 Apr 1). The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS. [note it was up a few months ago, don’t know why it is temporarily down, but I found a copy at: https://www.thebody.com/article/evidence-hiv-causes-aids
Of course there is a lot more evidence developed since 2009.
And there is an excellent book: Seth Kalichman (2009) Denying AIDS.
Keep posting as a broken record. Keep displaying your spiritual beliefs on a blog that focuses on science. Keep making a fool of yourself! ! !
The closest I recall for Fauci and science was along the lines that everything he says is based on science. His critics don’t have a good answer to critique the science itself so instead they resort to attacking him (just as we are seeing on this blog).
The rank, gravity-ass-bong freakout, as compared with the actual remark, is hilarious, like Fox trying to stage Marat/Sade in the garage.
“many experts say,” “many people lost their licenses,” “many people are cancelled or censored. NAME ONE. I’m sick of people like you walking this earth throwing hyperbolic speech around. It’s disingenuous. It’s meant to inflame discourse. Worst? IT JUST ISN’T TRUE. Start justifying your hyperbole or put a sock in it.
Indie: “Duesberg was ridiculed and cancelled for thinking that amyl nitrite poppers cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, one of the defining AIDS diseases.”
Despite his ludicrous AIDS denialism and all the damage it caused in South Africa and elsewhere, Duesberg remains a professor at the University of California at Berkeley, where a misconduct investigation was resolved in his favor on grounds of “academic freedom”. He’s also churned out several books advancing his theories.
That doesn’t equate to being “cancelled”, unless you, like other cranks, equate criticism with “cancellation”. On the contrary – by trying to stifle criticism, you’re attempting to cancel critics.
Give that some thought.
@Dangerous Bacon
“by trying to stifle criticism, you’re attempting to cancel critics.”
That is the opposite I what I want, and you know it. Duesberg wasn’t just criticized, he was never again able to get research funding. Up until that time, he never failed to get research funding. He was silenced as a mainstream scientist.
And you must also think Robert Gallo is an AIDS denialist, because he also decided that HIV alone is not the cause of AIDS. And he was the originator of the idea!
Fauci and Gates have immense power over who gets funding, what gets published, and what the public is told. Fauci has the dominating personality and Gates has the money, and as partners they can’t be defeated.
Gallo suspects a herpes virus that can be treated with off patent drugs. Maybe many lives were lost simply because that idea could not be studied.
And almost any disease anyone gets in Africa now is called AIDS.
False. And very racist to boot.
I guess that explains what he was doing in PNAS in 2014.
As you have been told multiple times. NIH grants are decided by peer review, by typicsl government commmittess
Oh, silly woman, you don’t realize that the Universal Consciousness has allowed me to put my, ah, “lime” in your coconut (it didn’t take much convincing). It’s just an exploratory procedure; you won’t remember a thing, which is basically par for the course.
Right-O, then!
A second warning to the WHO from the smartest person through this pandemic….
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/second-call-to-who-please-dont-vaccinate-against-omicron
Counter balancing Bossche, I also give you Pfizer’s Bourla. What?! He is actually calling for sympathies for the antivaxxers!
On this note, has anyone noticed the not so subtle shift in provaxxers’ Covid blaming as captured in Biden’s last Omicron update. It went from antivaxxers are prolonging the pandemic to, with the now undeniable vaccines failure, just plain, Covid is going to kill you you foolish antivaxxers; enjoy your stints in ICUs on ventilators with your grieving loved ones mourning your pitiful souls!
Antivaxxers are like — whatever!
https://www.cnn.com/videos/business/2021/12/19/albert-bourla-pfizer-ceo-interview-mc-orig.cnn-business
Quoting myself .
Indeed, that was the biggest goalposts shift in the history of mankind, and it’s remarkable how successful it was. The narrative all along was vaccination could help end the pandemic, and the unvaxxed were treated with scorn for not doing their part. With Omicron coming along and mercilessly rubbishing the vaccines, Biden and co should have been in the hot-seat to account. Switching the narrative by telling the vaxxed that they would live and the unvaxxed would die was how they escaped. I am now picturing Biden and co behind the scenes whipping their foreheads and exhaling, ‘whoo!’.
Quoting myself….
Not only that, Trump coming along and bragging about his booster couldn’t have been a better Christmas present to Biden, Fauci and co. I imagine Fauci struggling to hold back grinning when he told Trump to keep it up.
Now and again, I get together with my ‘antivaxx’ brothers and sisters; some of them are always assailing Trump as a wizard who is craftly working behind the scenes to bring down the ‘establishment’ How I struggle to get it through to them that Trump is just a bumbling buffoon.
I wonder if Joel would also suggest that Israeli scientists are running for ‘Moron Of The Year’ for also cautioning that over vaccination might be screwing up natural immunity.
Israel’s 2nd Booster: Better ‘Safe than Sorry’ or Bad for Natural Immunity? Experts Weigh in Amid Omicron
https://www.news18.com/news/world/israels-2nd-booster-better-safe-than-sorry-or-bad-for-natural-immunity-experts-weigh-in-amid-omicron-4595513.html
Do you then enjoy time in ICU ? Actually Biden is telling you that vaccine helps you, because antvaxxers do not care other people.
@Julian Frost
RACIST? WHAT? Now just mentioning Africa is racist?
Some people have gone far off the rails. I suppose if I say “Africa is a continent” that would be a racist statement. Or giraffes live in Africa.
@ Indie Rebel
For a south african like Julian Frost and for someone who grew up in Lesotho, like me, where AIDS is a very genuine problem, your remark about “every african disease is now called AIDS”, yeah… it’s kinda racist.
Indeed.
23 % prevalence of AIDS in Lesotho.
Your jibberish nonsense could very well be considered racist.
To me, it’s more idiocy and self-centeredness from your part, but “racist” also goes down well with me on that one.
@ Indie Rebel
“Or giraffes live in Africa.”
Ah. Yes. That’s not racist. Nor were the jokes about my fondness about Africa being derided in France as being a “little colonial boy who forgot his colonial hat before being hit too hard by the equatorial sun…”. Of course, that’s not racist.
Except I mostly saw snow in Africa… Have a look. Mesmerise yourself.
F-ck. I miss that country.
Beautiful countryside.
@squirrelelite
The most beautiful highlands I ever saw. Highlands end to end. Real highlands.
It would probably just be the start of more Lamarckism.
@ Greg
I wonder if you, Kay West, and Indie Rebel are competing for MORON OF THE YEAR AWARD? You find someone who confirms your bias and ignore everything else. You have NEVER indicated any basic knowledge of immunology, microbiology, epidemiology, etc. And I have posted comments where almost 400 studies just on the Moderna mRNA vaccine have been published, probably an equal number for Pfizer, etc. And these papers/studies have been conducted by researchers around the world, funded by different sources. Even this week, newspapers have reported that the absolute highest number of hospitalizations and deaths for covid are in areas with lowest vaccination rates. And studies have found that, though vaccinated may be infected, risk of serious disease exponentially lower.
Why do you persist in making an absolute fool of yourself???
There is something called “The Terrible Twos” (in Swedish, trotsalter), basically around 2 years of age kids tend to just say no, do the opposite of what is asked. And we know that some adults regress and/or have psychiatric conditions that mimic such. So, maybe your continued ignoring of what I and others write is just you being in a mental health state similar to “the terrible twos???”
“competing for MORON OF THE YEAR AWARD?”
There are only a few days remaining so we’re likely seeing the final sprint at the end of a closely fought marathon. Merry Xmas etc. I’m outta here.
K, let’s try this again….
Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH,
Are you denying that the prevailing evidence is suggesting that vaccinees are experiencing difficulties building lasting protection after exposure?
If you agree to 1, then please account.
And, just another pointed question for Joel; provaxxers never seem keen in addressing it.
Yes, the evidence does suggest the unvaxxed are at greater risks for sickness and death. Still, it’s clear that the vaccines are doing a poor job at stopping infections, and, with the emergence of Omicron, this is now crystal clear. So, Joel, if the vaccines can’t stop the infections and won’t help to build herd immunity, how will we ever reach a point where there is no more pandemic and sickness and deaths?
There are a couple strong competitors on the Malone blog as well.
Guys, seriously, I am hoping someone here can answer this question.
Strictly considering that flawed vacuum where the evidence suggest boosting against Omicron benefits the double vaxxed, how would that work for me as an unvaxxed person? Let’s consider that hell does freeze over and you guys convince me to take my first swig of Pfizer’s ‘miracle juice’, would that not put me at an increased risk at contracting Omicron as the evidence suggests, and even after my second swig? Then it would be a wait for atleast three months, while I remained at risk, for my booster to better protect me, but even then I would still be at an increased risk over remaining completely unvaxxed. Seriously guys, please account!
Sure: Fuck off.
They would help you too. You would get your first doses
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“Greg I wonder if you, Kay West, and Indie Rebel are competing for MORON OF THE YEAR AWARD?”
Have you considered that it would be just as easy for us to call YOU a MORON? It requires no intelligence at all. We could just go back and forth, calling each other morons. Do you really think it gives you some kind of edge in an argument, to act like a pre-schooler?
@F68.10
“For a south african like Julian Frost and for someone who grew up in Lesotho, like me, where AIDS is a very genuine problem, your remark about “every african disease is now called AIDS”, yeah… it’s kinda racist.”
Well I’m just curious now — HOW is it racist? Or is racist just your fall-back insult for anyone you don’t agree with? I noticed Orac called RFK a racist, which was pretty bizarre. But understandable, now, if it’s all part of the wokee drug pusher arsenal.
@ Indie Rebel
“Well I’m just curious now — HOW is it racist? Or is racist just your fall-back insult for anyone you don’t agree with? I noticed Orac called RFK a racist, which was pretty bizarre. But understandable, now, if it’s all part of the wokee drug pusher arsenal.”
I’m kind of anti-woke. I have no tolerance for baseless and politically oriented instrumentalisation of genuine racial issues. It’s an insult to the Royal Family of that beloved country of mine, and to its monarch, King Letsie III of the Moshoeshoe House, whose country did serve as a safe haven for dissidents in the context of the medium intensity civil war that led to the dismantling of apartheid.
Genuine racial issues should not be confused with the worst aspect of wokism, that do attempt to stir storms in teacups to disrupt countries instead of intelligently addressing issues.
As to why your comment is racist. Well, I said it’s more stupid and self-centered than it is racist. That’s the Main Cardinal Sin, IMO. I stand by that assessment.
But it also is racist because it promotes a skewed view of what Africa is and africans are. It starts being racist at the moment it can be proven that it is done deliberately.
Otherwise, it’s merely ignorance.
I have no problem stating that the Central African Republic is not a Republic and is a shithole. Kind of Africa’s Afghanistan is terms of social norms and mores.
But I do have a problem with people disparaging Africa as a whole. All the more when Southern Africa (in which I include South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Lesotho) overall has a fairly decent track record when it comes to rule of law, freedom of speech, and implementation of liberal democracy. With african characteristics, as Xi Ping-Pong would say…
Your comment was disparaging. It was uninformed. If it was done in ignorance, it’s mostly ignorant (and mildly racist). If done not in ignorance, deliberately, it is racist.
And do not confuse me with the woke brigade. I have nothing in common with them. I’m in that liberal atheistic moderate right wing that currently is anti-woke. And I refuse to endorse racial politics. Both in France and in a southern african context. Mark my words.
But I’m nonetheless not blind.
And, one day, when you’ll start behaving, I’ll explain to you how I managed, at school, in Lesotho, to expose in the stamp-collecting club a magnificent collection of Nazi-era german stamps in front of my school comrades. Which were mostly black. But which also included the son of Germany’s ambassador to Lesotho. You know, the dude that was giving german advice as to how Lesotho should solve its racial issues with apartheid era South Africa.
Hilarity ensued.
Of course, I had no clue what a nazi was…
RFK Jr. is a lawyer, so he knows he could be sued for liable if he falsely accused Fauci of unethical or criminal behavior. If this book is full of lies, it is a gold mine of lawsuits for Fauci and his agencies.
For example, Kennedy says Fauci used healthy month old infants as lab animals in phase I trials of drugs that were known to be highly toxic. They were orphans and had no one to advocate for or protect them. That HAS to be a serious crime. If they didn’t die from the experimental drugs and doses, they could likely be permanently damaged. And aside from that, they were made to suffer.
My guess is Fauci won’t be able to sue him, because he would lose, because the accusations are true and documented.
How do YOU feel about a medical leader who would use month old babies as lab animals? I can hardly think of anything worse. But it all fits with what I had known previously about him.
@ Indie Rebel
“For example, Kennedy says Fauci used healthy month old infants as lab animals in phase I trials of drugs that were known to be highly toxic. They were orphans and had no one to advocate for or protect them. That HAS to be a serious crime.”
Precise quote required.
You seem to have that book handy.
If you claim that’s in the book, it should be no issue for you to get us that quote, so that we may know what the real accusations are.
Thank you for your cooperation.
And:
You were an imbecile the day you showed up here, and you’re just getting worse. As far as this wholly unprovoked remark goes, ask yourself this: Why isn’t Orac spending his time suing all the knuckle-dragging shitwits who crawl out of the woodwork here?
For that matter, why isn’t RFKjr suing everybody who correctly observes that he’s a lying sack of shit? OK, so he is properly one of the Disinformation Dozen and running a racist propaganda operation. That takes care of that.
^Rats, forgot the tree for the forest:
Where did he say this?
^ At least I.R. has made clear that she doesn’t know what a Phase I trial does in the first place.
I would guess that RFKJ’s legal team made sure to protect him from claims of defamation, especially from a Public figure (such as government officials). ‘Not being sued’ does not prove that the claims are true.
@ IR
Liars like you are the most unkind people on earth. We all know what you say isn’t true but you profit from it nonetheless. Sick.
@ Greg
You write: “Are you denying that the prevailing evidence is suggesting that vaccinees are experiencing difficulties building lasting protection after exposure?” AND “yes, the evidence does suggest the unvaxxed are at greater risks for sickness and death. Still, it’s clear that the vaccines are doing a poor job at stopping infections, and, with the emergence of Omicron, this is now crystal clear. So, Joel, if the vaccines can’t stop the infections and won’t help to build herd immunity, how will we ever reach a point where there is no more pandemic and sickness and deaths?”
First, what do you mean by “lasting protection after exposure?”
So far the evidence has found waning protection in unvaccinated who even experienced severe covid; but the level of antibodies in the vaccinated remained as long or longer. In fact, some studies have found that even those hospitalized with covid sometimes had afterwards low antibody counts. Studies find that, yep, there is some degree of infectivity remains; but lower and shorter duration; but the best way to build herd immunity is simply that all get vaccinated. In such a case, even if everyone sheds some virus, risk of severe disease, hospitalization, and even death will be exponentially reduced. And if people also continue to wear masks, risk much lower. While not a good analogy, seatbelts prevent about 50% of deaths and serious injuries, that is, when warn. If a number of people don’t use their seatbelts then serious injuries and deaths will increase. And if enough are vaccinated, no more pandemics or epidemics; but occasional cases as unvaccinated and some vaccinated, e.g. senior citizens with severe comorbidities are directly exposed to someone, perhaps coming from another nation where covid still prevalent. And so far Omicron, though much more infectious, far less serious cases than Delta. And if tomorrow a new variant, both highly transmissible and severe, that current vaccines literally don’t provide any protection for, then those who were at high risk up to now but were protected by the vaccine, if they get the new variant, the vaccine gave them an extra year of health. As I’ve written several times, you seem to experience joy at possible weakness of vaccines, joy that means people will suffer. You are an extremely despicable excuse for a human being.
You just keep showing your stupidity by wanting an all or none situation. Vaccines don’t guarantee that individuals couldn’t develop severe disease, etc.; but reduce risk exponentially and protection from vaccines doesn’t guarantee long term protection; but any sane person who understands the risks from natural covid, either to oneself or others, and just how safe the vaccines are, simply will have NO problem getting boosters, even every six months, and continuing to wear a mask when appropriate, e.g., shopping, meeting with large number of people without knowing their vaccine status.
You keep showing your extreme stupidity by conflating infection with disease. As I’ve explained several times, we have in and on our bodies potentially pathogenic microbes all the time; yet, our immune systems keep them in check. So, infected with covid not the same as developing illness and even infection based on nasopharyngeal swab may be temporary, that is, virus inhaled; but immune system will remove.
As I’ve also written, one can find university faculty, books, articles that deny the Holocaust, that reject the overwhelming evidence that “race” doesn’t exist and that difference in abilities between mythological races don’t exist. So, the fact you can find things that confirm your biased stupidity means nothing.
That’s a lie, Joel! All the credit evidence points to the unvaxxed, who were previously exposed, being much better protected and with lasting immunity. Thise jives with the fact that lower vaxxed regions of the world, with much more natural exposure, such as India, South Asia, and Africa are experiencing less cases. They are well positioned to build true herd immunity and end the pandemic in their borders, and as we are witnessing.
Thanks for conceding in a roundabout way that your solution will never build herd immunity and end the pandemic. All it is is never ending serial vaccination and other non-stop containment measures such as masking to reduce cases, not end them. Sorry, Joel, don’t blame some for saying, no thanks!
SUpporting evidence required, especially since I posted that link that the first person in the U.S. to die of Omicron was unvaccinated and had caught COVID before.
@ Greg
You write: “That’s a lie, Joel! All the credit evidence points to the unvaxxed, who were previously exposed, being much better protected and with lasting immunity. Thise jives with the fact that lower vaxxed regions of the world, with much more natural exposure, such as India, South Asia, and Africa are experiencing less cases. They are well positioned to build true herd immunity and end the pandemic in their borders, and as we are witnessing.
This is the third time I’ve posted the following that refutes your claim of lower cases in India, etc. Actually much higher cases. Just proof it is you who are a dishonest liar. Read it again! As for who is better protected, one good article is:
Joshua Cho (2021 Dec 17). The Dangerous Misuse of ‘Natural Immunity’ Against Covid Vaccination. FAIR.
UNDERCOUNTED COVID DEATHS IN INDIA AND AFRICA
ABSTRACT: “India lacks an authoritative estimate of the death toll from the COVID-19 pandemic. We report excess mortality estimates from three different data sources from the pandemic’s start through June 2021. First, extrapolation of state-level civil registration from seven states suggests 3.4 million excess deaths. Second, applying international estimates of age-specific infection fatality rates (IFR) to Indian seroprevalence data implies a higher toll of around 4 million. Third, our analysis of the Consumer Pyramid Household Survey, a longitudinal panel of over 800,000 individuals across all states, yields an estimate of 4.9 million excess deaths. Each of these estimates has shortcomings and they also diverge in the pattern of deaths between the two waves of the pandemic. Estimating COVID-deaths with statistical confidence may prove elusive. But all estimates suggest that the death toll from the pandemic is likely to be an order of magnitude greater than the official count of 400,000.” Abhishek Anand, Justin Sandefur, and Arvind Subramanian (2021 Jul). Three New Estimates of India’s All-Cause Excess Mortality during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Working Paper 589. Center for Global Development. Available at: https://cgdev.org/publication/three-new-estimates-indias-all-cause-excess-mortality-during-covid-19-pandemic
UNDERCOUNTED DEATHS FROM COVID IN INDIA. [Note. the following are from Wikipedia articles; but each article includes references, several that I was able to obtain; but I don’t feel like giving references to each one as anyone can go to the Wikipedia articles and click on themselves]
“In April and May 2021, a number of India newspapers reported on the discrepancies between the number of cremations at various locations and the official counts for COVID-19 deaths at the same locations, leading to conclusions of undercounting.[21][34][35] The Telegraph accessed an order in a rota circulated in a hospital in West Bengal related to COVID-19 deaths which said “In case of Covid positive – No mention of Covid in death certificate.”[36] Such cover-ups also contribute to undercounts in the national figures.[36] Not mentioning COVID-19 as the cause of death on the death certificate has caused a number of orphans whose parents died of COVID-19 to become ineligible for orphan specific government schemes.[37]” [Note. for instance, not mentioned COVID as cause of death, government saves money] [Wikipedia. Undercounting of Covid Deaths] “Undercounting of total cases and death figures was reported during the first wave in 2020. The discrepancies were detected by comparing official death counts released by the governments to the number of deaths reported in obituaries, at crematoria and burial grounds, etc. Some states were reported to have not added suspected cases to the final count contrary to WHO guidelines.[434][435][436] Similar undercounting was reported during the second wave in 2021.[437] There have been large gaps noted between official death figures and the sudden increase in the number of bodies being cremated and buried. Several crematoria that had been in disuse earlier were brought back into operation to keep up with the demand.[438][439] A series of articles in The Hindu newspaper estimated that compared to previous years, the number of additional deaths during the pandemic (known as the ‘excess mortality’) was about four times the official COVID death toll in Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai, and could be up to ten times higher in the state of Gujarat. However, it is not clear what proportion of these are due to covid and what are due to other factors such as overcrowding of medical facilities, lock-down, etc.[440] A report by the Center for Global Development stated that the second wave of COVID-19 in India was the “worst tragedy since the partition”. The report, based on serosurveys, household data and official data, pointed towards a significant underreporting of deaths, with estimates ranging from about 1 million to 6 million deaths overall, with central estimates varying between 3.4 and 4.9 million deaths.[441][442] On the evening of 11 April, two reporters from the Gujarati language newspaper Sandesh and a photojournalist staked out the mortuary of the 1,200-bed state-run COVID-19 hospital in Ahmedabad. Over 17 hours, they counted 69 body bags coming out of a single exit before they were loaded into waiting ambulances. Next day, Gujarat officially counted 55 deaths, including 20 from Ahmedabad. Again on the night of 16 April, these journalists visited 21 cremation grounds around Ahmedabad and counted more than 200 bodies, with photographic and video evidence. The next day Ahmedabad counted only 25 deaths. Similar disparities in numbers were seen on other days.[443][444] The Gujarat government denied the undercounting and stated that they were following federal protocols.[445] A study conducted by the University of California, Berkeley, and units of Harvard University, estimated in August 2021 that more than 16,000 excess deaths had occurred in 54 municipalities in Gujarat between March 2020 and April 2021. The study used data from civil death registers in a subset of Gujarat’s 162 municipalities. The authors stated that the “vast majority” of these deaths could likely be attributed directly to Covid-19. The government’s estimate of the death toll from Covid-19 for the entire state was approximately 10,000 for the same period.[446][447]” [Note. this article gives in-depth coverage of all aspect of pandemic in India, e.g., economic, etc.] [Wikipedia. COVID-19 pandemic in India] “Undercounting of cases and deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic in India is not unique to the country.[31][24] Journalists,[32] mathematicians,[11] epidemiologists,[33] statisticians, and scientists have attempted,[34] according to their expertise, to arrive at a truer number of the actual cases and deaths. The aim of this is to ultimately improve national and international responses to the pandemic.[35][36][37] Journalists have spent time at burial-grounds and crematoriums and counted in-person the number of burials and cremations. These manual counts have been compared to government figures and have been found significantly different.[32][1] India’s national serological surveys also point to large numbers (ratios of one is to thirty) of cases remaining undetected.[9][11] The scale of under-reporting from one place to another can be very large.[36] The undercounting may or may not be intentional. Rather undercounting may occur due to unreported COVID-19 cases, inefficiencies in the data collection system, inability to adapt to pandemic like situation and people not reporting deaths.” [Wikipedia. Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in India]
UNDER REPORTING COVID DEATHS IN AFRICA South Africa: “South Africa’s official Covid-19 death toll stands at more than 75,000, but the real number could be around three times higher. This is because excess deaths, defined as the difference in the total number of deaths in a crisis compared to those expected under normal conditions, exceed 220,000. This represents 374 excess deaths for every 100,000 people in South Africa. The discrepancy in confirmed Covid-19 deaths and excess natural deaths is attributed to underreporting of the underlying cause of death, especially in cases of home-based fatalities, according to a study conducted by the SAMRC and the University of Cape Town’s (UCT) Centre for Actuarial Research.” [Business Insider SA (2021 Aug 11). SA estimates 220,000 excess deaths during the pandemic – ranked among the world’s worst] Africa: “By mid-October, the real number of infections on the continent from SARSCoV-2 (the virus that causes Covid-19) was estimated to be 59-million, compared with the approximately 8.5-million cases officially reported. Officially reported statistics show that by mid-October 2021, approximately 75-million tests had been performed across Africa – roughly one for every 20 people on the continent. Reliably reporting case numbers and resulting deaths also requires a well functioning civil registration and vital statistics (CRVS) system, with all deaths being recorded timeously. But according to the UN Statistics Division, the CRVS systems in most developing countries do not work as they should. In continental sub-Saharan Africa, only a quarter of the countries are considered to collect data on at least half the deaths that occur in that country. In many cases the cause of death is not recorded or information may not be available in near-to-real time. What’s more is that this number mostly comes from people who died in hospitals or clinics; people dying from Covid outside health facilities are likely missed.” [Johnson T et al. (2021 Oct 22). ANALYSIS | The pandemic didn’t miss Africa — and the numbers back this up. http://www.news24.com “Stéphane Helleringer, a demographer who has worked on mortality in several African countries, said that on the African continent, ‘There are very, very few countries that even attempt an estimation of mortality based on death records.’ In 2017, only 10 percent of deaths were registered in Nigeria, by far Africa’s biggest country by population — down from 13.5 percent a decade before. In other African countries, like Niger, the percentage is even lower. Families often don’t know they are expected to report deaths, or even if they do, there is little incentive to do so. Many families bury loved ones in their yard at home, where they don’t need burial permits, let alone death certificates.” [MacLean R (2021 Feb 26). A Continent Where the Dead Are Not Counted. The New York Times] “In this commentary, we explore some of the factors purported to be responsible for the low COVID-19 infection and case fatality rates in Africa: low testing rate, poor documentation of cause of death, younger age population, good vitamin D status as a result of exposure to sunlight, cross-immunity from other viruses including coronaviruses, and lessons learnt from other infectious diseases such as HIV and Ebola” [Note, though deaths underreported, still may be lower in some African nations than elsewhere because of factors such as age, good vitamin D, and lessons learned] [Okonji EF et al. (2021 Jul). Understanding varying COVID-19 mortality rates reported in Africa compared to Europe, Americas and Asia. Tropical Medicine and International Health; 26(7): 716-719.]
@ Greg
You write: “Thanks for conceding in a roundabout way that your solution will never build herd immunity and end the pandemic. All it is is never ending serial vaccination and other non-stop containment measures such as masking to reduce cases, not end them. Sorry, Joel, don’t blame some for saying, no thanks!”
YOU REALLY ARE SUPER STUPID. Herd Immunity does NOT mean no cases, it means no pandemic or epidemic. Herd immunity simply means that if any cases develop, no domino effect, doesn’t lead to mass cases, not a guarantee for no cases. When the US high extremely high rates of smallpox vaccinations, a few cases occurred in unvaccinated who either went abroad or were visited by someone from abroad who was not vaccinated. But only a few cases, not 100s or 1000s or . . . Herd Immunity has only completely eliminated one disease, smallpox, because it only had a human reservoir and once the last human case and world vaccinated, no more smallpox. Polio has almost achieved this. But if only human reservoir and not ended by vaccination, then will always experience a few cases.
Yep, serial vaccinations. How horrible? I go for annual physical once a year and they draw blood. I donate blood every four weeks. Big deal, a minor needle stick. As I’ve written over and over and YOU ARE TOO STUPID TO UNDERSTAND, getting a booster every six months, even if results in sore arm and slight fever for a day or so much better than risking severe disease, hospitalization, long covid, and death.
YOU COMPLETELY IGNORE WHAT I AND OTHERS HAVE WRITTEN, THREE TIMES NOW ABOUT UNDERESTIMATED DEATHS IN INDIA, ETC. AND YOUR ABSOLUTE STUPIDITY IN NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT HERD IMMUNITY IS AND IS NOT. Herd immunity simply means that if any cases develop, no domino effect, doesn’t lead to mass cases, not a guarantee for no cases.
@narad
“Or giraffes live in Africa.”
“It would probably just be the start of more Lamarckism.”
LOL. Racism and Lamarkism all in one sentence.
@F68.10
“If you claim that’s in the book, it should be no issue for you to get us that quote, so that we may know what the real accusations are.”
I’m reading it in Amazon’s cloud reader, which is sucky. It doesn’t let you copy text.
I swear I described what he says accurately, but of course you won’t believe me. And I can hardly blame you since the crimes are so outrageous, and we don’t expect those things to happen in the US.
Maybe I can find some way to copy text in this stupid cloud reader.
@ Indie Rebel
“I’m reading it in Amazon’s cloud reader, which is sucky. It doesn’t let you copy text.”
Not an excuse.
I just extracted a quote from Eric Temple Bell’s 1945 monograph on the development of mathematics. I could not copy paste it. I nonetheless did type the characters one by one.
With my little fingers.
You have no excuse.
That must have been “sucky.”
@ Narad
Less sucky than translating 19th century German mathematics. I have to unearth the origin of a specific idea in Formenlehre oder Mathematik, Part 2: Begriffslehre oder Logik by Robert Grassmann. 1872.
THAT is sucky.
Then pick up a pencil and write it the fuck down, shitheel.
I don’t understand, if ‘crimes are so outrageous’ why didn’t the crusading lawyer file a report with the police, report to the newspapers etc. Did he save it for the book, just to drum up sales? If this was so horrendous – why did he wait so long to get it out in the open? Do you know?
@Narad
“Cut to the chase and buy a mirror.”
Oh yeah I’m so vicious, I dared criticize your Dear Medical Leader. But at least I never murdered helpless babies.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “Oh yeah I’m so vicious, I dared criticize your Dear Medical Leader. But at least I never murdered helpless babies.”
Give a reference. As I’ve written umpteen times, one can find Holocaust Deniers, Deniers of Science that NO difference between “races”, climate change deniers, etc. And some are faculty at universities. But one can also look at the overwhelming majority of scientists, historians, etc. and understand that one can always find people, even so-called respected people, who go off the deep end.
So, give proof of “murdered helpless babies.”
You just keep proving just how despicably stupid and dishonest you are. You ignore what I and others write, including references and just keep throwing out “one liners.”
No, maybe you haven’t so far “murdered helpless babies” but if you and others like you actually influence some people to avoid vaccines and no wear masks, eventually some helpless baby may be exposed to some vaccine-preventable microbe and suffer the consequences.
Unlike the Jews? Bleating out the blood libel as some bizarre self-defense is disgraceful.
Not quite, Betsy Wetsy.
Fortunately, your casually inverted blood libel (gotta put something in the wafers) has been tramped into the ground, but for some reason you decided to place your “reply” far away from where you started. To review:
See how that “context” thing works? No, I didn’t think so.
@ Indie Rebel
“But at least I never murdered helpless babies.”
Your crazy words are not persuasive nor evidentiary.
@ Indie Rebel
So, you are reading RFK’s book online. Well, in his book, which I have read, one can click on any number following some quote and it goes to the reference. Did you check out the reference for his claim about Fauci and infants. I did check out many of his quotes and they didn’t give a direct link; but instead from a book or paper written by someone else, often a someone else who is known member of right-wing conspiracy group, believer in QAnon, claiming Sandy Hook never happened, etc. And no where does RFK indicate he went to their reference list/footnotes and checked to verify the validity/accuracy of the quotes they used. Of course, you could care less as they confirm what you wish to believe. Just more proof you are not a trained academic; but a “religious” fanatic who lives for confirmation bias, etc.
Please give the Chapter and, perhaps, subsection for the claim of what Fauci did. I will borrow book or ebook from friend/acquaintance, they have different paginations, again and check the references. I search web for used copy because I don’t want to give royalties to a severely mentally disturbed vicious person like RFK
@F68.10
“Something’s not right when you expect africans to be more science savvy than westerners…”
Aha! RACIST!
@ Indie Rebel
No, dumb ass. I also lived in Malawi. I know what I’m talking about, what I saw, how they think.
This has nothing to do with racism.
I had great chats with them about these juices they were making from the trees, saying they sold them on the market to “make man feel strong”. (Think “strong penis”, pal). You obviously do not know the good ol’ days with San B. I do. More classy than US hip hop…
I’m fed up of whiteys who never saw a black in its natural habitat call people who have racists.
I’m fed up of jerks like you who call people racists just because they’re fed up of being called racists and because they get a kick out of instrumentalising the issue.
I’m fed up with this nonsense about “racism” among whiteys, which amounts to nothing else than group therapy of the most pathetic kind, of a kind completely divorced from realities on the ground. Completely divorced from the fact that India is just now having toilets everywhere. That they’re not forced to defecate in the open anymore.
I’m fed up of whiteys who never get out of their towns, and understand racism in a very very very… self-centered manner.
I grew up in Maseru. In a black black black environment. You’ll never be able to educate me about racism, buddy.
But keep trying being your most pathetic.
The more I confront myself with jerks like you, the less I feel european and the more I think of myself of an African.
As a reminder, it’s very hard for a public official to sue for libel in the U.S., because the standard is very high.
Most public officials don’t anyway. It’s against the culture. And someone like RFK jr. may welcome a lawsuit as an attention generating event.
“He didn’t sue for libel so it’s true” is a horrible statement. It’s just incorrect, and is not evidence that anything the antivaccine activist said was true.
“As a lawyer, he wouldn’t publish lies about a public official because he’d be afraid he’d be sued for libel” is just as untrue. As a lawyer, he knows it’s really hard for a public official to win a defamation lawsuit against him, so he’d not be that worried. As an attention seeking conspiracy theorist he wouldn’t mind the attention of a lawsuit, either.
The story about Fauci’s experiments on orphan children and babies starts around page 528. One reference is the BBC documentary Guinea Pig Kids.
I don’t understand how anyone could have read the book and not remember this. I had also read about these horrific experiments previously. Children who were healthy before the drugs were forced to take them. If they refused, because the drugs were making them so sick, tubes were implanted in their stomachs that the drugs could be administered through. No matter how sick these children became, the trials were not stopped, doses were not even decreased. This was a horrific episode in Fauci’s AIDS adventure.
It was his “principle investigators,” the drug makers, who actually ran the experiments, but it was under his authority.
@ Indie Rebel
“The story about Fauci’s experiments on orphan children and babies starts around page 528. One reference is the BBC documentary Guinea Pig Kids.”
Would you be so kind as to provide a quote from page 528 or a link for the BBC documentary ?
So that we do not just have to waste our time jumping through hoops on the Internet just to have a chat with you ?
Thank you for your cooperation.
“Murdering innocent babies,” you mean. Lying sack of shit. You wouldn’t know good faith if it somehow invaded your worthless existence.
“BBC apologizes for airing AIDS ‘denialist’ documentary”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nm1207-1391
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “The story about Fauci’s experiments on orphan children and babies starts around page 528. One reference is the BBC documentary Guinea Pig Kids. I don’t understand how anyone could have read the book and not remember this. I had also read about these horrific experiments previously. Children who were healthy before the drugs were forced to take them. If they refused, because the drugs were making them so sick, tubes were implanted in their stomachs that the drugs could be administered through. No matter how sick these children became, the trials were not stopped, doses were not even decreased. This was a horrific episode in Fauci’s AIDS adventure.”
First, I asked for Chapter and Subheading. The epub version has different pagination; but doesn’t matter. Yep, I just did a search on the Guinea Pig Kids. Found the following. Note, no evidence kids who refused were removed and tubes placed in their stomachs. At the time, HIV positive kids were dying at alarming rates and NONE of the kids in the study died from the medications. Read the following and check out the additional references. So, like I’ve said over and over, I do my homework, you don’t. You just automatically assume anything that confirms what you believe is true. I also gave a reference above to a paper that gives numerous references confirming that HIV is the cause of AIDS and the paper, as I also wrote, explains the cases of, for instance, Pneumocystis carini and Kaposi’s sarcoma, giving valid references to statistics before HIV and after, including validated HIV detection. Why don’t you read the paper I referred to. Maybe, just maybe, if you have even a minimally open mind, you will change to accepting HIV causes AIDS, the only cause. And I gave a 2nd reference in same comment to article on AIDS Denial, actually sections from an excellent book. AND I REPEAT, THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT ANTIRETROVIRALS, INCLUDING AZT, EVEN GIVEN TO THOSE WITH FULL-BLOWN AIDS, RESULTED IN SAVING LIVES, MANY ALIVE 30 YEARS LATER.
From Wikipedia. Incarnation Children’s Center
“From the late 1980s through 2005, foster children at the Center with HIV/AIDS were enrolled on clinical trials of antiretroviral medication, which was successful in reducing the death rate from AIDS.[1] In 2005, the Center was the focus of “Guinea Pig Kids”, a BBC documentary alleging ethical violations in these clinical trials.[1] The allegations prompted an investigation by the Vera Institute of Justice, which concluded that no children had died as a result of the trials, but that the Center had kept poor records and sometimes failed to follow its own enrollment policies.[2] Subsequently, the BBC apologized for “very serious issues” in “Guinea Pig Kids”, and conceded that the documentary made misleading allegations and
was biased toward the views of AIDS denialists.[3][4]”
From tsmith (2007 Oct 25). BBC apologizes for promotion of misleading HIV denial film, “Guinea Pig Kids”. ScienceBlogs:
“…following an investigation led by the BBC’s head of editorial complaints
Fraser Steel, the corporation has upheld complaints about several key
parts of the film and a related article on the BBC website.
These included claims that the HIV medicines given to the children were
“futile” and “dangerous” and that children were taken from their families
because they resisted the “experimental” drugs.
In its adjudication, the BBC also said that the film-makers falsely tried to
“create an association between the [clinical] trials and a loss of parental
rights” while it also acknowledged that the film was biased towards the
views of HIV “denialists”
The fact is that ICC and the more than 30 other agencies in New York that took part in the trials used the clinical trials framework to make life-saving medications, already approved for adults, available to children with HIV who would otherwise have died.
She notes that in the 1980s, kids in foster care (or those not living with their
parents for a variety of reasons) were not allowed to participate in clinical trials. By 1992, this represented about half of the HIV+ kids in New York
City–until Incarnation Children’s Center and other advocates intervened.
Kids could be enrolled in the trials and receive antiretrovirals; however,
clinical trials ended at ICC in 2002. Why? Horror stories of children dying?
Nope–because the trials had been completed, and the medications had
been approved for use in pediatric populations.
Finally, I suppose it won’t be surprising to many regular readers to find out that Christine Maggiore played a role in this tale.”
Additional References:
James Doran (2004 Nov 30). New York’s HIV experiment. BBC News.
Dan Evon (2021 Nov 3). Fauci’s Guinea Pigs? Smear Campaign Rehashes 1980s HIV Clinical Drug Trial. Snopes.com.
Leigh Holmwood (2007 Oct 23). ‘Serious concern’ at BBC over flawed HIV film. The Guardian.
Virginia Hughes (2007 Dec). BBC apologizes for airing AIDS ‘denialist’ documentary. Nature.
At least it’s good to know that RFKjr is willing to use Liam Scheff as a source.
Thanks for this! Maybe there will be a brief respite from Rabid Idiot spewing vile nonsense, at least until it repositions the goal posts and reloads via another epic bout of coprophagia.
Joel said: ” First, I asked for Chapter and Subheading”.
Denialists use specific techniques to circumvent our attempts to uncover their manoeuvrings ( from Dr DG):
–they rely upon conspiracy theories to explain why an event happened: someone is benefiting in nefarious ways. Always conspiracies. Deep, dark and hidden.
— they firehose you with loads of information, studies, quotes et al that prove their contentions. In a live debate, the sceptic can’t respond to each and every datum so the audience may think that they are stumped. In reality, most of the material may be misquoted, poorly sourced and sometimes, even unrelated to the main issue.
In written form, as Joel does here, we can respond to each detail, provide corrections, better sources AND ask for specifics.
Of course, this can involve a lot of work: Brandolini says it takes an order of magnitude more information to refute a given quantity of nonsense. Maybe more than one.
True believers are adamant in their positions and may not be movable. A belief in anti-vax can be related to libertarianism: the government has no right over your actions and/ or reliance upon “natural” solutions to health problems. Of course, these beliefs include to hostility to public health measures.
Some advocates are entrepreneurs who themselves benefit from broadcasting these ideas to audiences.
Are particular people more likely to believe in conspiracies and/ or anti-vax? Yes. A whole body of psychological / sociological research is emerging that shows certain personality types and social groups are more vulnerable to these ideas. Interested readers can search for ” personality traits / anti-vaccine” or “personality / belief in conspiracy theories”
@MedicalYeti
It is a fact that AZT is very toxic, and no one doubts it. You can even ask your pro-drug friends here.
@ Indie Rebel
And you persist as a broken record. Yep, it can be toxic; but you continue to ignore the overwhelming evidence that it helped keep people with HIV alive until other antiretrovirals were developed and in lower doses is used still today in combination treatments.
All of none, your approach to anything that doesn’t confirm your stupid unscientific biases. Vitamin D and iron supplements can be dangerous if taken in large quantities over time. And an extremely good friend to me related to me how her hemoglobin level was around 5, severe anemia and she discovered that milk inhibits absorption of iron and she drank milk with every meal. So, even milk can be toxic, dangerous for ones health.
Why don’t you read the paper that documents the evidence that HIV causes AIDS. Oh, because you avoid anything that might challenge your stupidity. It includes a section on AZT.
No comment on your accepting Guinea Pig Kids as true? I have found many more papers that literally tear it apart. Including that the two main sources of information for the film were:
Liam Scheff who was an HIV/AIDS denier and died young from AIDS; but, as with many HIV/AIDS deniers, on his death bed wrote he was dying from tinnitus at: Scheff (2017 Apr 6). My Final Post – Vaccination Information Network.
AND
Celia Farber who wrote a number of papers. even for Harper’s Magazine that promoted HIV/AIDS denial. Her papers were riddled with errors and lies. She even sued those who wrote papers saying so and lost in court.
Gal Beckerman (2006 Mar 8). Harper’s Races Right Over the Edge of a Cliff . Columbia Journalism Review.
And by the way, besides your insane demonization of Anthony Fauci, you also demonize Robert Gallo. Did you know that prior to discovery of HIV, he discovered Interleukin 2 and many aspects of retroviruses? Yep, he claimed discovery of HIV; but it was based on sample sent by Luc Montagnier. What you fail to understand is that he was working on its discovery and given his level of expertise, with high probability would have discovered it; but it was wrong what he did. However, typical of your to demonize him and reject everything he does/says.
From Wikipedia. Robert Gallo
“Gallo was the most cited scientist in the world from 1980 to 1990,
according to the Institute for Scientific Information, and he was
ranked third in the world for scientific impact for the period 1983–
2002.[1] He has published over 1,300 papers.[2]
Do you really think that one should reject all his other research/papers without actually looking at them, methodology, etc.? Yep, you do. Interesting how when I point out all the errors in RFK’s book, you keep saying that there are still some valid points; but this is how you look at anyone who in any way, shape, or form confirms your rigid unscientific biases; but then anything you can jump on from someone who doesn’t confirm you stupidity, well, then they are pure evil and you demonize them.
Read the Wikipedia article! ! !
It absolutely IS NOT A FACT. I have prescribed it to pregnant women to prevent vertical transmission. I have prescribed it to newborns. It is SAFE SAFE SAFE. It stops that vertical transmission. It is SAFE, CHEAP, and EFFECTIVE.
You, once again, DO NOT know what the hell you are talking about. YOU JUST DO NOT.
What’s it going to take? You have never seen the drug, never used it, never known anyone who has, never been to medical school, never taken care of an HIV patient, never taken care of an AIDS patient, never diagnosed HIV, probably don’t even know how HIV works. Yet, you know better? YOU KNOW BETTER?
Did you read the link?
@ Indie Rebel
“You can even ask your pro-drug friends here.”
I am NOT pro-drug.
I’m even anti-medicine.
But pro-science.
And yoy cannot produce any data about its toxicity. Repeating a thing endelessly does not make it true.
@ EVERYONE
I am fairly certain that Indie Rebel and his ilk will NOT read it; but I’d love to hear from others if you think the following paper makes an overwhelmingly compelling case that HIV is the cause of AIDS (Note. I have more; but especially like this one):
U.S. Nationals Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (2009 Apr 1). The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS. [note it was up awhile ago, don’t know why it is “temporarily down”, but I found a copy at: https://www.thebody.com/article/evidence-hiv-causes-aids
I also highly recommend excerpts from Kalichman (2009). Book: Denying AIDS. at: https://www.thebody.com/article/denying-aids
An example: “Avoid Falling into Single Study Fallacies
No one research finding ever proves anything. Even the most compelling research studies require further analysis and independent replication before scientists themselves draw firm conclusions. One red flag is raised when a summary of research extracts a single sentence from a study to make the case for an argument. It is likely that the study finding is being exploited for the sake of denialism.”
AND “Red flags for Internet web sites include being based on old sources, especially dating back to the 1980s,”
This is exactly what RFK does in his book, namely, referencing mainly early studies, ignoring later ones; e.g., BBC apology and other articles on all the flaws, outright lies, in Guinea Pig Kids.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
The best you have, that HIV alone causes AIDS, is an NIAID statement on a propaganda website. Ok.
Leaving aside the usual expansively stupid petulance of this “quip,” one glaring thing (among many) is why you are so attached to HIV/AIDS denialism.
You’ve already crowed about your incoherent occultist polyploidy, also without explanation, but you sure have dug in your shit-covered heels for this hill to die on. Is it just because you’re such a bumbler as to have run out of the massive amount of other foolishness that you could embrace like Fabio on the cover of a bodice-ripper?
@ Narad (@ Indie Rebel)
“You’ve already crowed about your incoherent occultist polyploidy…”
Bwahahaha….
“…but you sure have dug in your shit-covered heels for this hill to die on.”
Indeed !
Death cultists always amuse me.
If it is just propaganda, why not read it and refute it ? Propaganda is obviously false.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
If you respect Gallo, why don’t you respect his opinion that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS?
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “The best you have, that HIV alone causes AIDS, is an NIAID statement on a propaganda website. Ok. AND “If you respect Gallo, why don’t you respect his opinion that HIV is not the sole cause of AIDS?”
First, typical of you to reject something without reading it. In your mind anyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. The paper a ton of valid references. Second, as I wrote, I do respect Gallo; but that doesn’t mean I automatically agree with him. I’m NOT like you. I don’t automatically reject someone based on one episode/one paper or similar. Nor do I automatically agree with everything they say. However, as I mentioned, hypocrite that you are, you accept RFK’s book may have errors/lies; but also valid points; but don’t accord the same flexibility with those you oppose.
The paper I referenced does include AIDS-like cases with a small number of people who have severely compromised immune systems and lab tests negative for HIV; but only a small percentage and they document reasons with references. As I mentioned earlier, almost all cases of pneumonia are caused by microbes; but a very small percentage are caused by chemical toxins. Read the paper you dishonest lowlife! ! !
And you fail to address that you are WRONG about claims made in film Guinea Pig Kids.
Read the friggin paper you lowlife MORON. You did the same thing with evolution. I forget the names; but you cited works of one professor. I found another professor, emeritus, from same department and a paper he wrote where he point by point refutes the former. Your response, he is an atheist, so nothing he writes is valid. So, you didn’t read his paper and really don’t know if what he wrote is valid or not, or, even, if some valid and other points questionable.
I understand why you don’t use your real name, this way you can continue to post comments that are stupid, intellectually dishonest, make an utter fool of yourself and remain anonymous.
I would like to thank you for one reason. At 75 I do the best to maintain my physical and mental health. I walk my dog a mile twice daily, spend half hour on stationary bike, do stretching, etc and I eat a healthy diet, vegan, some supplements, not megadoses, and low sugar high fiber intake. For mental health, besides playing with my dog, I read a lot, currently new text on immunology and later edition of one of the best books ever debunking racism. I read earlier edition years ago. But when you post your constant undocumented asinine claims, often just a broken record, your demonization of people, seeing world in black and white, I sometimes decide to do searches, not for one or two; but many papers. I sometimes learn something new; e.g., whether was you or Greg, that vaccines do have temporary effect on innate immune system; but this can be good because the adaptive immune system, for instance, calls for an inflammatory response and so does the innate, so if both, could be a disaster for our health.
And the papers/articles/chapters I find I catalogue, place in folders/subfolders on my computer. For instance, for Guinea Pig Kids, I found 41 papers. I did find the part in RFK’s book, clicked on link to references, and obtained almost all of them, 9 papers; but all flawed and refuted. Typical that he ignores anything that refutes what he claims, and mainly cites early papers.
Nice to know that I am still quite good at finding things, understanding them, and using them honestly, that is, not finding a quote; but understanding the entire document.
So MORON, though it does take me away from my reading, my goal is to keep my mind active, though refuting an idiot unscientific nobody like you, someone who sounds like a broken record, who makes absolutist statements, who demonizes people, and who seldom if ever even acknowledges in a comment that you read and understood what I wrote, does have its downsides; but on the other hand, I am confident that the vast majority of those following this blog appreciate what I write.
When I get insulted here for saying what I think, I know the person insulting me somehow feels threatened. If they really thought my opinion was nonsense, they would not be bothered by it. They would either ignore it, as being nonsense, or they would simply explain why they think it’s wrong. If you call me a MORON, and worse, I know it’s because you feel threatened and have no clear logical arguments for why you disagree.
I know that RFK Jr. is a biased anti-vaxxer, but I am reading his book anyway. It gives a point of view not seen in the pro-drug, biased and censored official sources. Unlike this blog, the book is relatively unemotional and logical. Sure, it could have inaccuracies and biases, but so does everything.
We know there is censorship, and that alone should make us skeptical.
The only experts who dare express their disagreements with the official narrative are either:
– Retired, or for other reasons ,not depending on research grants and social approval.
– Dissenters who have already been excommunicated.
– Alternative and natural medicine types, who are already scorned by the pro-drug medical industry.
My only goal is trying to unravel the mystery. Which side is correct, and which is wrong? Probably both, to some degree.
I do believe the Fauci-Gates partnership is all-powerful and in control of research universities, medical agencies, mainstream news outlets. Any opposition is angrily bulldozed, instead of reasoned with. I see that right here.
There is no way to have calm rational discussions in a place like this. I will post information if I feel like it, but I won’t reply to anger and insults.
AZT is very toxic, that is a fact. If you are an MD who has prescribed AZT to pregnant women and babies, I can see why you would be defensive. If you give good evidence for why, in your opinion, it is harmless, I will read it.
But, again, I am not replying to comments that are angry and insulting.
I am not an anti-vaxxer and I am not against modern medicine. I am not an advocate for alternative medicine. I am against what has happened to medical science, as it now dominated by the drug industry.
Classic.
Asked and answered.
Is that a logical AND? A recipe would be very helpful.
Which vaccines do you approve of?
@ Indie Rebel
“If you call me a MORON, and worse, I know it’s because you feel threatened and have no clear logical arguments for why you disagree.”
You are a moron.
And I do not feel threatened.
Not by you.
You have (1) provided no “good evidence” of anything whatever, (2) have been provided with one standard-of-care statement and ignored it, (3) been advised to search Pubmed and ignored it, (4) just smarmily added on to your list of projections, (5) tossed in the Nirvana fallacy for good measure, and now you’re priggishly offering to review what should be your own homework so long as other people do it for you and present the material to your exacting but unstated criteria of deference?
@ IR
“I do believe the Fauci-Gates partnership is all-powerful and in control of research universities, medical agencies, mainstream news outlets. Any opposition is angrily bulldozed, instead of reasoned with. I see that right here.”
As usual, you believe but provide no proof of control. You have been given reasoned responses in so many fields of thought but reject them outright only to promote,
I presume, a tin foil hat company somewhere in Unicornia.
You aren’t here for any other reason than to test out some sort of rhetorical position. When your rhetoric fails to forward whatever your position is at the moment, you resort to bigotry of all sorts (better than the one’s who go straight to violent memes). Bigotry makes people angry by the way.
Your respondents do generate some of the best explanations highlighting your ignorance about COVID and health that I’ve read. I am happy for the firm contradiction of your rhetoric.
@ 1000 Links to a Furlong
“As usual, you believe but provide no proof of control.”
Faith… or self-deception.
Dissidents are not cancelled
Alternative practioners sell supplements, so they obviously propagate consiracy theories.
You think Fauci and Gates control everything ? This a most basic “5he man” conspiracy theory. Perhaps nobody believes you because you are wrong.
You do not discuss at all. You just repeat claims endlessly.
How do you know that AZT is very toxic ? Narad actually posted toxicity data. Do read it. Everybody says so is not evidence.
Oh no. What have I done? I have to reevaluate all of my life’s choices! I prevented in excess of two dozen vertical transmission cases of HIV with absolutely no ill effect in the newborns. I’m a monster for depriving them a life of HIV positivity. It’s a great virus. It’s the best virus. Everyone is saying so.
I’m not going to argue with you anymore about this. You have ZERO relevant experience, training, or education and you certainly DO NOT have a medical license. Get back to me when you have one and we can disagree about the care of our patients. Get back to me when you create the newest and greatest HIV drug or intervention and I will take a look at using it in patients.
Now, back to this: “No, that is prohibited now. Dissent from the mainstream consensus and lose your medical license, get banned from youtube.”
Name ONE PERSON who has lost his or her medical license LIKE YOU CLAIMED. Name one person who has been censored LIKE YOU CLAIMED. Stop repeating RWNJ talking points ad nauseum. Think for yourself, there, “Rebel.”
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “They would either ignore it, as being nonsense, or they would simply explain why they think it’s wrong. If you call me a MORON, and worse, I know it’s because you feel threatened and have no clear logical arguments for why you disagree.”
I have over and over supplied clear logical arguments and you just ignore them.
You write: “I know that RFK Jr. is a biased anti-vaxxer, but I am reading his book anyway. It gives a point of view not seen in the pro-drug, biased and censored official sources. Unlike this blog, the book is relatively unemotional and logical. Sure, it could have inaccuracies and biases, but so does everything.”
“relatively unemotional and logical” Wow! He uses gross hyperbole, demonizes people, and not “inaccuracies and biases”; but many examples of just plain dishonesty and other where he refers only to early studies and/or people who are known as conspiracy theorists, some even subscribing to QAnon. Basically he just refers to anyone who says what he chooses to believe and as I explained CLEARLY, it is impossible that he isn’t aware of the papers that have debunked Guinea Pig Kids, yet he devotes several pages to it. If you think he is unemotional and logical, just adds to my opinion of just how intellectually dishonest you are.
You write: “The only experts who dare express their disagreements with the official narrative are either:
– Retired, or for other reasons ,not depending on research grants and social approval.
– Dissenters who have already been excommunicated.
– Alternative and natural medicine types, who are already scorned by the pro-drug medical industry.
My only goal is trying to unravel the mystery. Which side is correct, and which is wrong? Probably both, to some degree.
Nope, you have made it clear that you give much more weight to the “dissenters”. And nope, not both wrong to some degree. However, given you have not indicated any understanding of immunology, microbiology, virology, vaccinology, history of vaccine-preventable diseases, and epidemiology, it is clear that you literally just believe what you choose to believe.
And that you refuse to read the two papers I have several times suggested, claiming the one is NIAID propaganda, well, then, based on your position, we shouldn’t trust any papers posted by NIH, FDA, CDC, and since you believe Fauci is all powerful, any peer-reviewed journal articles, etc. In other words, rather than actually looking at what they say, their methodology, etc. we should just rely on our subjective biases as you do.
You write: “AZT is very toxic, that is a fact. If you are an MD who has prescribed AZT to pregnant women and babies, I can see why you would be defensive. If you give good evidence for why, in your opinion, it is harmless, I will read it.”
I have given evidence, including references and the paper from NIAID has a section that both explains that AZT has saved lives; but, you reject any evidence that contradicts your extremist position, so you make it absolutely clear that there exist NO good evidence that you will accept or even look at that refutes your position.
You write: “I am not an anti-vaxxer and I am not against modern medicine. I am not an advocate for alternative medicine. I am against what has happened to medical science, as it now dominated by the drug industry.”
NOPE. Medical science is NOT dominated by the drug industry. They do play a major role; but as I’ve explained over and over again, scientists do research, write papers, etc. from around the world. Some with funding from drug industry; but other funded from their respective governments, etc. And I also explained that I do NOT rely on drug industry funded studies alone; but look at their methodology and follow Public Citizens advice to wait seven years before using a new drug, unless your condition is extremely serious and no other treatment available. You just keep up with your exaggerated dishonest biases. And I repeat, your are WRONG about AZT; but won’t even look at any papers that contradict you.
So, given I have just gone through logical and rationally what you wrote, given it will have NO effect on you, I will finish with YOU ARE A INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST MORON. And I also explained why I waste time responding to you which I explained above:
“So MORON, though it does take me away from my reading, my goal is to keep my mind active, though refuting an idiot unscientific nobody like you, someone who sounds like a broken record, who makes absolutist statements, who demonizes people, and who seldom if ever even acknowledges in a comment that you read and understood what I wrote, does have its downsides; but on the other hand, I am confident that the vast majority of those following this blog appreciate what I write.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: ” Even Robert Gallo, who first suggested that HIV is the sole cause of AIDS, later decided that other viruses are also involved. And Montagnier, who discovered HIV, agreed with Gallo. Duesberg was ridiculed and cancelled for thinking that amyl nitrite poppers cause Kaposi’s sarcoma, one of the defining AIDS diseases.”
First, I did a search, found 20 papers on Gallo, HIV and AIDS; but not one said he “later decided that other viruses are also involved.” Maybe you are confusing that HIV weakened the immune system, so that other viruses who confronted by a fully functioning immune system would NOT have been able to do anything; however, if you mean that Gallo later decided that people who are HIV negative can still develop AIDS from some other virus or viruses, PLEASE GIVE DIRECT QUOTE AND URL.
As for Duesberg and poppers, the NIAID paper gives a good refutation of this, including, of course, valid solid references. Check it out if you dare!
And you write: “My only goal is trying to unravel the mystery. Which side is correct, and which is wrong? Probably both, to some degree.”
Really, those who promote homeopathy vs modern medicine, both correct to some degree? Those who promote Reiki. And you claimed NO funded studies on Reiki and I found dozens and U.S. National Institutes of Health has a separate Department for investigating alternative medicines, and so far has spent over $2 billion dollars. I wrote this and it proves that you are wrong when you claim no funding of research on alternative medicines. Check out the website; but just one more example of your dishonesty, ignoring what I write that proves you are WRONG. National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health
@ Joel
“Really, those who promote homeopathy vs modern medicine, both correct to some degree?”
C’mon, Joel. You perfectly well know that the Earth is a half-sphere, and that it is flat beneath.
Or perhaps banana-shaped.
So… 1/3 banana-shaped. 1/3 a sphere. And 1/3 flat.
Mystery solved.
The lie that vaccines could solve Covid and the refusers were the main problem is coming back to bite Biden and co in their ass. Who knew that persecuting the unvaxx ‘jews’ could be so costly!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-turns-down-oct-plan-to-boost-covid-testing-report
Just a train wreck of a comment and unsubstantiated — as usual.
I believe you are just promoting fox news because the link has no relation to your comment. Click bait comment. Wow.
The lies that Greg tells better describes this. Or — desperate!
Why are you folks so desperate to have a victim hood narrative?
@ MY
Some aren’t desperate and just don’t care that they promote garbage because apparently there are plenty of people who like the smell. Who knew?
When propagandist’s are confronted with results — then it’s tap dance city. What kind of rhetorical trick will stop the chase we see? So far, the method is guilt trip and obvious insinuations. So dark, people getting healthcare to save their life. Just a nasty place. I would say — take the vaccine and your health will be protected. It’s just not difficult.
The anti-health arguments are soo predictable. All we have are the meat wagons to pick up the innocent who took a moment too soon to realize — hoodwinked!
Sad watching these anti-health people help kill people with the words and vision they promote.
Good for you for being a decent human being on the front line of good health policy and treatment. Not to mention being quite to the point. Thanks!
How many of you ‘jews’ have been gassed, Maggot? C’mon, dirtbag.
You seem to be under the impression that this disgusting routine somehow protects you. It doesn’t. For that matter, how do you know that the vaccines are real? That would be perfect, no? Keep inbreeding, and your cross-eyed spawn will be nice and comfy out in the barn.
Then again, you’re such a chickenshit that you still haven’t said whether you’ve had COVID-19 or been vaccinated. After months and months of being asked, when you could have just lied right off the bat. This is telling.
@ Greg
Fox News is well-known for bias in favor of Republicans and, especially, Trump. So, obviously they exaggerate anything that makes Biden look bad. And you continue to ignore the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE that the vaccines are saving lives, preventing hospitalizations, etc. And, yep, in a civilized society, in a community, requiring vaccinations, both to reduce burden to hospitals, and risk to others is the norm.
I realize that you don’t give a shit about others and that you continue to display your absolute ignorance regarding risk of covid and benefit of vaccines.
Keep making an absolute fool of yourself! ! !
p.s. the fact that you watch Fox News says a LOT about you.
@ Greg
You write: “Who knew that persecuting the unvaxx ‘jews’ could be so costly!”
So, once again playing the Nazi card, insulting the memory of the real victims of Nazism, Jews, and many others.
There is no other way to describe you that an absolute vicious ASSHOLE! Yep, a word that shouldn’t be used lightly; but applies perfectly to you. As I’ve explained numerous times, Nazis were a death cult, and whether you in your immense ignorance and stupidity choose to not believe in vaccines, those supporting them are doing so to save lives. Do you even understand the difference between intentionally killing people and intentionally wanting to save them??? ASSHOLE! ! !
I really wish you were standing in front of me. At 75 with arthritis, I would love to put you in the hospital. Maybe a stay in the hospital where you would see how overwhelmed they are with covid cases might change your mind; but I doubt it.
Nah, Joel, I won’t stop. It’s Christmas; right now there is a single mom sitting at home who was fired from her job for exercising a right to refuse an unwanted medical procedure. She is now stressing for the New year as to how she will find a job to put bread on the table.
What would you say to her, Joel? Take comfort that no one is raping or executing her? Or, would you tell her that her plight is just a ‘reasonable’ price to be paid for ‘protecting’ the public?
Me? I would tell her that her situation and others’ represents a return to one of the nastiest place in our history. And, even more sad, a place that we promised we would never return to.
Here’s what I would say to your single mom: You are a fool. You made your choice, you knew the consequences, now live with them.
I hear there are lots of job openings for short-order cooks.
https://66.media.tumblr.com/75bfd14f0de530cb5f718359431203d5/8b40a4d6b5428071-49/s640x960/24783cf230e344bbcd414fa760a2e8d0a4186f1c.png
Why are you so desperate to be a victim?? WHY? Also, you gotta love the “Help! We’re being victimized!” with the juxtaposition in the same thread of “We’re gonna git ur guns and kill yooooo.” Which is it? You helpless? You a badass space shuttle door gunner? Do you think your side is the only one with guns and combat experience? Can’t wait to watch a bunch of fools with junk ARs trying to take on an AH-64. I saw that move, live, in person. Didn’t go so well for the fools.
What’s more, I’m not convinced that these comments are not all coming one or two people under different names. The themes, language, and sources for talking points are too similar.
Finally, I don’t give af about Fauci or Biden. I care about PEOPLE. I care about PATIENTS. I care about health – even yours Greg. Especially your mental health. If there was evidence that any of the things Fauci was against ACTUALLY WORKED? Hell-I’d be handing it out like candy. So would any other doctor. In the beginning we gave people HCQ. Turns out it didn’t do a goddamn thing so we stopped.
That she shouldn’t have listened to you, but now that she did, it’s time for you to take responsibility for your actions and pay her living costs.
Medical, please! I am actually too lazy for the whole revolution thinga-magica. And, I would actually tell other ‘antivaxxers’ not to waste their energy. Right now you guys are hemorrhaging so bad that the smartest strategy might actually be to get out of your way.
Medical, I know that you guys are ‘compromised’, but I am actually surprised that you would stoop so low. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t pretend to be a saint, but I sincerely believe that there are some lines that we should not cross.
I also mentioned the Taliban: I believe it’s just as shameful that the US government deserted the Afghani people to them. Where are the Woke movement and feminists to cry foul. Their silence is deafening!
Quoting myself…
Actually, you guys have committed worse sins than the Nazi mandates, but most of those were reactionary cover-ups. Whether Vioxx, vaccines and autism, or Covid lab leak, crap happened and you guys sinned to save your ass. The Nazi mandates, however, are different in that they are more premeditated.
@ Greg
“I also mentioned the Taliban: I believe it’s just as shameful that the US government deserted the Afghani people to them. Where are the Woke movement and feminists to cry foul. Their silence is deafening!”
A broken clock like you is spot on twice a day.
Otherwise, you’re just dumb.
@ Greg
First, so far the U.S. government has supplied funds to those out of work; but what would I say to her? Well, what would I say to her if she went to work, got seriously ill or infected others? What would you say to her friends and family if she died from covid?
By the way, I’ve now read five books on the covid pandemic and numerous papers. If the U.S. corporations hadn’t outsourced to India and China manufacturing of personal protection equipment and many drugs, if we had NOT allowed the strategic stockpile to run down, and if Trump had reacted to the threat not as a threat to himself and worked with science advisors to protect the American people, then we could have implemented more conservative measures, e.g., made sure everyone had n95 masks and wore them to work, improved ventilation, especially at restaurants, and seating at least 6 foot apart, guaranteeing anyone who felt they were symptomatic to be paid 7 – 10 days for staying at home and prosecuted any boss who tried to fire them, etc. then maybe, just maybe we could have nipped the pandemic in the bud and had many deaths; but far fewer; but we didn’t. And you ignore all the experts that without the mitigation measures and then the vaccine that we would already have at least 2 million dead. And unfortunately, there is little evidence that we will be much better prepared for the next pandemic. We still have a shortage of N 95 masks for general public, etc. I have a few.
But, I accept your disagreement with how one balances individual’s rights and public responsibilities, despite your ignorance of just how serious covid is and how effective the vaccines are; but I will NEVER accept your referring to Nazis. As I wrote, you are a despicable ASSHOLE.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
Well yes, of course, it had to be all Trump’s fault. He wasn’t even smart enough to promote and fund the research that might have started it.
IR -> who disbanded the pandemic preparedness office? Wasn’t Obama.
Since you’re back: Name ONE PERSON who has lost his or her medical license LIKE YOU CLAIMED. Name one person who has been censored LIKE YOU CLAIMED
Not Covid-19 related, but the California Medical Board has revoked the medical license of Mary Kelly Sutton for “gross negligence” and “repeated acts of negligence” after investigating charges of her doling out blanket vaccine exemptions for at least eight children.
It turns out that Sutton never saw or examined any of the kids. Instead she relied on phone interviews with parents. She didn’t bother reviewing their medical records, since such info “loads up the chart unnecessarily”.
https://www.skepticalraptor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Kelly-Sutton-License-Revocation.pdf
Don’t feel too badly for Dr. Sutton, who must be at least in her seventies but still practices anthroposophic, holistic and integrative medicine* on Massachusetts patients (by phone) from her new HQ in Rhode Island.** Whether Massachusetts’ board will act in accordance with California’s license revocation remains to be seen.***
Meantime you can still glean pearls of wisdom from her Twitter account, which rails about “medicofascists” and the “worldwide planned genocide” they are leading us into.
*curiously, her medical website does not contain any specific info or links explaining the care she offers. The practice has been converted into a private trust, and you have to become a member to make an appointment. Very mysterious.
**In Sutton’s view, acute infections are an “exercise class for the immune system”. I suppose that if you’re too sick to get out of bed, you can watch old Richard Simmons videos.
***Sutton’s lawyer says no matter what may happen in the future re board action, Sutton plans to offer her “professional services” anyway.
Give me Slim Goodbody any day. (Especially with Captain Kangaroo, who also had “A. Robins,” the Banana Man. I can’t remember whether I started the FB fan page for him back in the day, but I definitely had the “Rosie Greer’s Needlepoint for Men” one.)
@MedicalYeti
“In the beginning we gave people HCQ. Turns out it didn’t do a goddamn thing so we stopped.”
Who is “we?” Plenty of MDs gave HCQ and thought it was very effective. It had to be at the right time after infection, in combination with other drugs and supplements. Maybe you did it wrong?
Maybe you forgot publication of the secret recipe.
@ Indie Rebel
“It had to be at the right time after infection, in combination with other drugs and supplements.”
When I read that, I really wish we’d jail Didier Raoult.
“Maybe you did it wrong?”
The siren song of the quackery enabler.
It’s never the fault of the remedy itself. The dose was too low/too high, you gave up too soon, you ruined your body with mainstream medical care, it didn’t work because you were skeptical – the excuses never end.
Yep. That’s it. I don’t know what I’m doing. I was trying to avoid ad hominems but Christ on a crutch you are one arrogant, know-nothing jackass. I have treated over eight dozen COVID cases from the clinic all the way to the ICU and everything in between. I have the receipts. I have actually been on the “Front lines” for this entire mess.I Unlike your buddy Pierre Kory, I actually evaluate and TREAT real covid patients. In the real world. With real consequences.
More and more proof is emerging every day that he is just as full of shit as you are. Anyone who has actually treated just ONE inpatient case of COVID on the floor, forget the unit, knows he’s fos. Everything he claims is either logistically, medically, or just plain old logically improbable if not impossible. Yet you swallow it like all like a dehydrated man in the Sahara because it confirms what YOU want to be true.
I really feel sorry for folks like you. You come on here and make underhanded, passive-aggressive threats and wage petty insults. Two things someone should have told you as a younger person:
You are not as smart as you think you are and others see right through it.
Your words and actions have consequences.
Good luck, schmuck.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “Well yes, of course, it had to be all Trump’s fault. He wasn’t even smart enough to promote and fund the research that might have started it.”
So, you continue to believe it came from a Wuhan lab; but, as I’ve pointed out numerous times, leaks for dangerous microbes happened numerous times in United States and even if it cam from Wuhan lab, the genetic sequencing found it was NOT designed as a weapon and was so close to corona viruses found in bats in China, that the evidence weighs towards occurring naturally; but who cares? If it came from a lab or from nature, the world and especially the U.S. was unprepared and, yes, Trump bears much of the responsibility. He literally cut funding to the National Strategic Warehouses, cut funding to CDC, put his cronies in charge of various agencies, not medical/epidemiological experts and he delay acting for almost two months.
You write: “Plenty of MDs gave HCQ and thought it was very effective. It had to be at the right time after infection, in combination with other drugs and supplements. Maybe you did it wrong?”
As for hydroxychloroquine, yep, in beginning, not having any medicines known to work, desperate medical personnel used it; but overwhelming, I repeat overwhelming evidence NOT only found it doesn’t work; but that those who received it had a HIGHER chance of dying. The timing DIDN’T matter!
Stop making a fool of yourself! Oh, being the fool that you are, you are too stupid to even recognize it.
I have read five books, written from different viewpoints, on covid pandemic and hundreds of papers and I understand epidemiology, etc. NO evidence that you understand any of the sciences underlying a pandemic; but you just keep on.
Dammit, Joel, now I have to get a new PACER account. (Actually, I can guess how this one ended, viz., like all the other attempts by AAPS to sue the FDA.)
@ Indie Rebel
And I’m still waiting for a direct quote about Gallo stating he believes AIDS caused by other viruses besides HIV, including URL or, at least detailed reference.
And you have already proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that your are intellectually dishonest, probably stupid by refusing to read anything that might refute your position and contain valid list of references that could also be checked out. You decide in advance if something disagrees with you, then it must by a lie, propaganda, etc. I don’t can’t believe you have a PhD. If so, either third rank school or you managed to pretend to follow the methodologies taught; but have now reverted to your biased one-sided unscientific irrational point of view.
The fact that you consider RFK’s book calm, unemotional, etc. when he used over and over hyperbole, demonization, cherry-picked references, often from many years ago and ignores more up-to-date papers, etc. says it all about you!
Something puzzling…
Why would Omicron be so apt to infect the vaccinated and previously infected? It’s as if the virus is perfectly fitted to beat adaptive immunity. Speaking of that, remember the ‘crazy’ article I linked that Omicron was a lab construct to evade adaptive immunity?
https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/coronavirus/scientists-identify-antibodies-that-can-neutralize-omicron-variant-1.5721309
@ Greg
You ignore that the vaccinated and previously infected aren’t the majority of those dying from and being hospitalized from Omicron. As I’ve written before and you are just too STUPID to understand, we have potentially pathogenic microbes in and on our bodies ALL the time; but our immune systems keep them in check and get rid of many of them. So, I am quite happy that my risk of severe illness, etc. is significantly reduced.
Why do you continue to make an utter fool of yourself???
@MedicalYeti
Nice that you know everything there is to know about treating covid. However, not everyone who treats covid agrees with you.
By the way, RFK Jr.’s book has a nice summary of how John D. Rockefellar took over modern medicine. Before that, there had been a balance between the two prevailing medical philosophies — pathogen fighting, on the one hand, and holistic/nutritional/environmental on the other. Rockefellar purged the medical schools of most of the holistic philosophy, and the result is what we have today.
Fauci, like many MDs today, is entirely on the germ fighting side. Notice that none of his public announcements on covid included advice about nutrition or exercise for keeping the immune system strong, and helping to prevent infectious disease.
Orac is on the same page with Fauci, maybe even more so. Orac believes that all holistic medicine is fake and harmful. I have never seen him acknowledge the benefits of a healthy natural lifestyle, or warn of the dangers of environmental toxins. He never seems to worry that Americans might be over-drugged. He, and others like him, seem to think good health depends entirely on drugs and surgery.
Although many medical professionals now combine insights from both philosophies, Orac is militantly on the side of the pathogen fighters. Extremists on each side can only scream insults at each other, with no interest in compromise or communication.
The Fauci-Gates partnership is completely in line with Rockefeller’s approach to world health. Instead of spending money on clean water and nutrition in 3rd world countries, all the resources are focused on vaccines and drugs. I assume most here would whole-heartedly agree with that approach. But if you had any awareness of the historical importance of sanitation and nutrition on improving health, you might think twice.
It’s not enough that alt med loonies obsess over Bill Gates – they must go back in time to perseverate about Rockefellar (sic) too.
It’s a manifestation of alties’ disordered thinking, like proclaiming the One True Remedy (or Thousand True Remedies) that heal disease by getting to the Root Cause rather than Just Treating Symptoms. By the same token they believe there’s a single Magnate Philanthropist Demon that’s the source of all our problems.
@ Indie Rebel
“By the way, RFK Jr.’s book has a nice summary of how John D. Rockefellar took over modern medicine. Before that, there had been a balance between the two prevailing medical philosophies — pathogen fighting, on the one hand, and holistic/nutritional/environmental on the other. Rockefellar purged the medical schools of most of the holistic philosophy, and the result is what we have today.”
Is that so ? May Rockefellar be blessed.
Do you have any quote handy ? So that I may print it, put it in a frame, hang it on my wall, and perform puja everyday with it ?
@ Indie Rebel
“Instead of spending money on clean water and nutrition in 3rd world countries…”
That was precisely the job of my family. And why I was raised in Africa.
Lesotho = Snow = Water = Lesotho Highlands Water Project.
It’s a tricky business to manage water in “3rd world” countries.
Ever thought of how one should price water in these countries ? No ?
Spoiler: “free water” does not solve the issue. And then… politics…
Oh! And corruption, of course… I forgot corruption…
re rich countries not spending money on less developed areas…
This is not a rarity: only about 8-10 years ago, my cousin, working on an MArch degree at an “elite” university, and other students in her group, designed and completed a water system in Bangladesh as a condition of graduation. It was not financed by that country but through the university and NGOs. The students did preliminary work at the U and had to live on site as well.
I remember Orac telling that he lost weight and was able to stop medications. Quite obvious, is it not.
It was actually Carnegie Foundation, who financed Flexner Report. Robert Kennedy Jr could not get even this right,
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
I think everyone here can agree you have won your arguments. You have used the word STUPID many more times than your opponents, and that’s all that counts.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “Instead of spending money on clean water and nutrition in 3rd world countries, all the resources are focused on vaccines and drugs. I assume most here would whole-heartedly agree with that approach. But if you had any awareness of the historical importance of sanitation and nutrition on improving health, you might think twice.
First, there are projects to get clean water to the developing nations; but it isn’t easy. Cities, yep, but nations with a lot of rural population, nope; but there are projects helping build wells, teach them to keep body wastes, etc. away from wells. And, as opposed to you, my degrees in public health included course in international health which focused on ALL the above. And every conference I went to had presentations concerning clean water, nutrition, etc. Typical that you just pull your opinion out of your ass or base it on some biased cherry-picked sources and your extreme bias against real science accept such.
UNICEF for Children. Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH)
Safe water, toilets and good hygiene keep children alive and healthy. [Then one can click on various topics]
And there are lots of government websites about nutrition and exercise; but you just ignore what I wrote. No matter how healthy you are, if a microbe attacks you that your adaptive immune system hasn’t previously encountered, it takes up to 14 days to get up to speed. In that time, the microbe could already kill you, do serious damage to cells, if retrovirus, could enter nucleus, hijack it, and produce literally billions, overwhelming even the best of immune systems. And, nope, regardless of how healthy you are, innate system often overwhelmed by microbes.
Some examples:
NIH: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “Diet & Nutrition
Food and beverages provide the energy and nutrients you need to improve health, manage disease, and reduce the risk of disease. [Contains links to more information]
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Nutrition Tools and Resources
Find resources on nutrition to help you pay attention to what, when, how often, why, and how much you eat and drink, as well as, help manage health conditions such as diabetes, obesity, kidney disease, and others.
And you ignore that you claimed no federal funding to look at alternative medicines, etc., including Reiki and I posted info on studies done on Reiki and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health that has spent over $2 billion on studies of alternative medicines. You are so dishonest, just keep repeating lie upon lie upon lie.
You write: “By the way, RFK Jr.’s book has a nice summary of how John D. Rockefellar took over modern medicine. Before that, there had been a balance between the two prevailing medical philosophies — pathogen fighting, on the one hand, and holistic/nutritional/environmental on the other. Rockefellar purged the medical schools of most of the holistic philosophy, and the result is what we have today.”
Before that we really didn’t have the type of science we have today. At that time, mostly based on anecdotes, theory, etc. So, yep, “result is what we have today” scientifically based interventions.
First, unfortunately, today, many medical schools do offer courses in alternative medicines and there are separate schools run by various believers that offer education. Second, moron, we have the Environmental Protection Agency, State and City health departments that monitor toxins in the air, water, etc. And there are entire departments in universities and medical schools that do research on this. Why do you think we removed lead from gasoline? Just one example. However, because of politics, power of industry, and mainly Republican party, they aren’t doing near enough. And it is pathogens, nutrition, and environment on the one hand and holistic, not scientifically validated approaches, on the other hand. And you continue to ignore all the points I made that clearly show that RFKs book is overwhelmingly hyperbole, cherry-picking (mainly of early papers, ignoring later), outright lies, paranoid delusions, etc.
You write: “Extremists on each side can only scream insults at each other, with no interest in compromise or communication.”
First, Orac presents well-documented, well-reasoned articles. It is NOT being an extremist if one bases their position on well-established science, on not one or two papers; but masses of them. I guess you think regarding racism that one should find some way to compromise. Same basic thing, racism, claiming a basis in science, has been refuted over and over again. And, yet, there are still even professors at universities who advocate that blacks are less intelligent, despite overwhelming data and studies. So, should one compromise with them.
And, I asked and ask one more time: You claimed that Robert Gallo stated at some time that he thought AIDS was caused by several different viruses, that is, AIDS while HIV negative. So, give the direct quote and a link to it.
You have NEVER given any evidence that you have even the basic knowledge of the sciences underlying infectious diseases and vaccines; but just keep on throwing out empty statements. Yep, keep quote RFK.
@ Indie Rebel
“You write: “@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
I think everyone here can agree you have won your arguments. You have used the word STUPID many more times than your opponents, and that’s all that counts.”
Do you really believe that everyone here thinks I won my arguments by calling you stupid, which you are. And this is just one more example. You don’t refute any of my points. You still don’t even give a quote from Robert Gallo, based on what you claim he said, that he believed that AIDS had a number of viruses that caused it, AIDS with no detected HIV. Just proof that you really can’t defend your position. Yep, I called you stupid and moron because that is what you are. You throw out empty phrases, not backed up, you continue to refer to RFK,, and you have NEVER given any indication you understand the basics of pandemics, infectious diseases, and vaccines. In other words, you are a perfect example of Dunning-Kruger Effect, too stupid to know you are stupid. You are pathetic.
@ Joel (@ Indie Rebel)
“Do you really believe that everyone here thinks I won my arguments by calling you stupid…”
I don’t.
“…which you are.”
Indeed.
“You don’t refute any of my points.”
Which is why you won.
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
My policy is not to respond to someone like you. But since you are so confused — I said that Gallo did not think HIV was the sole cause of AIDS, and that he thought herpesvirus 6 was also involved. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7888069/
@ Indie Rebel
“I said that Gallo did not think HIV was the sole cause of AIDS, and that he thought herpesvirus 6…”
That article was in 1995.
We are in 2021.
This was 2021-1995 = 26 years ago.
Didn’t scientists settle this one in the last 26 years ?
@ Indie Rebel
Well, finally, instead of just saying empty phrases, you actually got something sort of right. Lots of things are involved in AIDS; but without HIV, herpesvirus 6 does nothing. It helps accelerate HIV. So, it is still HIV that causes AIDS. Without it, NO AIDS. I’m sure you don’t understand the difference or don’t want to.
And you have ignored that I tore to shreds RFKs book with four comments, that I tore to shreds his grabbing on to Guinea Pig Kids. Basically, this may be the first time you even tried to post something “scientific”; but you misunderstand it. There is NO evidence that HIV won’t progress to AIDS without herpesvirus 6, it just accelerates the process. Do you even understand this?
From Wikipedia. Herpesvirus 6:
“Human herpesvirus 6 lives primarily on humans and, while variants of the virus can cause mild to fatal illnesses, can live commensally on its host.[13] It has been demonstrated that HHV-6 fosters the progression of HIV-1 upon coinfection in T cells.[37] HHV-6 upregulates the expression of the primary HIV receptor CD4, thus expanding the range of HIV susceptible cells. Several studies also have shown that HHV-6 infection increases production of inflammatory cytokines that enhance in vitro expression of HIV-1, such as TNF-alpha,[38] IL-1 beta, and IL-8.[39] A more recent in vivo study shows HHV-6A coinfection to dramatically accelerate the progression from HIV to AIDS in pigtailed macaques.[40]”
So, HHV6 can accelerate progression of HIV to AIDS; but you assumed he meant that HHV6 could cause AIDS, hope just an accelerant.
I could give other examples of some microbe that leads to a specific disease; but others factors that accelerate it.
And I will bet that sooner or later you will once again claim that government doesn’t fund studies on nutrition and exercise, etc. despite what I wrote. And I would be wiling to bet that sooner or later you will claim that no programs exist to get clean water, etc. to Third World people, despite what I wrote. That’s you, a rigid ideologue, someone who believes anything on NIH, FDA, CDC websites are just propaganda, that Fauci is some immensely powerful evil man; but what proof do you have? RFK, other antivax websites. And you believe that, for instance, Medicare and other health insurance policies should both recognize alternative “medicines” and pay for them, basically, whatever someone claims based on “theory” and anecdotal evidence should be accepted. Basically, you reject the entire concept of science based on objective reproducible studies. You made it clear early on that you want people to consider the “spiritual” aspects of life and I have nothing against that; but it is subjective and doesn’t belong on this website which focuses on SCIENCE. You continue to attack ORAC for focusing on science. Go join a church, temple, mosque, or whatever; but stop making a fool of yourself on this website.
In any case, thanks for the one article. I’ve added it to my file on Robert Gallo, who by the way was and is a superior scientist to Luc Montagnier. In fact, he had published a number of papers where he devised methods for looking at viruses, etc. before the 1984 article where he stated HIV was cause of AIDS. And he didn’t do anything wrong intentionally. He and Montagnier had been exchanging cell samples for some time. He sent one to Montagnier who, in his lab, accidentally allowed one of his cells to mix with Gallo’s, so when he sent another sample to Gallo, it contained a mixture; but Gallo did take credit; but one more thing. Montagnier’s 1983 paper only said he found a retrovirus in cells of AIDS patient. Didn’t say it was cause of AIDS. Gallo did and he was right. “So HTLV-IIIB and LAV were one and the same, and both came from the same sample. Between 1983 and 1984, the two teams did regularly swap samples, but quite how the crucial sample ended with a “discovery” in Gallo’s lab has never been fully explained.” [Andy Coghian (2008 Oct 7). Was Robert Gallo robbed of the Nobel prize? New Scientist]
“In the November 29, 2002 issue of Science, Gallo and Montagnier published a series of articles, one of which was co-written by both scientists, in which they acknowledged the pivotal roles that each had played in the discovery of HIV,[36][37][38] as well as a historical review in the New England Journal of Medicine.[39]” in Wikipedia. Robert Gallo.
One last thing. While Gallo has continued to do quality research, Montagnier now promotes, among other things, homeopathy
Joel said: ” So, it is still HIV that causes AIDS. Without it, NO AIDS.”
Hiv/ aids denialists, since the earliest days, have insisted that other factors were necessary, hinting that the illness was due to how a person behaved ( read “gay sex”, promiscuity, drug use) or lived ( extreme poverty, malnutrition) and that the virus itself was quite harmless.
However, research has shown that health care workers without any of these risk factors could become hiv+ if stuck with a needle or cut during surgery on an hiv + patient. AND ARVs, if administered afterwards, could greatly reduce their chances of becoming hiv+ themselves.
Why would people want to believe in a “harmless” virus?
Besides prejudice against poor people, Africans, gay men and drug users, there was a profit motive: some denialists are supplement salesmen who reject pharmaceuticals entirely and sell “natural” remedies ( supplements, herbs, foods). Nicoli Nattrass calls them “cultropreneurs” and Kalichman outlines theiractivities in his book. I am sad to say that although this deranged belief system has become less prevalent as many hiv+ spokespeople died and ARV research advanced, it still persists. Anti-vaxxers share some of the same beliefs as natural health advocates by rejecting meds almost entirely, substituting lifestyle choices instead. I have documented how several hiv/aids denialists have shifted over to the anti-vax camp in recent years using similar arguments to scare people away from vaccines as they did for meds.
So it’s not hiv, measles, HPV or Covid that is harmful, it’s how you live.
Must say that I am happy that Bossche clarified his innate antibodies in the links he provided.
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/scientific-blog/q-a-08-innate-immunity-vaccine-super-immunity
@ Greg
Typical, without any basic understanding of the immune system, you choose to rely on people like Bossche who have basically gone off the deep end. For instance, on his website he stated the covid vaccine would be the end of mankind. I wouldn’t hold my breath. You just don’t stop. No knowledge of basics, so whatever confirms what you want to believe must be true. Wow!
As I’ve explained and you ignore, besides over 200,000 papers on mRNA, 400 on development of mRNA, both before 2019, placebo-controlled double-blinded randomized clinical trials, reports/studies have around the world, show the vaccine has prevented deaths, hospitalizations, long covid, etc. in multi-millions of people. But it isn’t 100% effective, so a few vaccinated have died; but almost all were the highest at risk in the first place. And, yes, Delta and Omicron have infected vaccinated; but being infected and getting sick are NOT the same thing. So far Omicron though much more transmissible is less serious for most people and few vaccinated have even been hospitalized. As I wrote and you, in your immense stupidity ignore, we have potentially pathogenic microbes in us and one us all the time. And we are sometimes infected with microbes that stay in our bodies only temporarily with no symptoms because our immune systems deal with them, so either having experienced natural covid or vaccinated, someone might be infected; but risk of serious condition exponentially lower than for naive immune system.
@ Gregg
And Orac has dealt with Geert Vanden Bossche in several articles. Just type in his name in search box.
Bossche makes a lot of sense, but, if I should criticize him, I would say he is reading you guys wrong about an Omicron specific booster. I am thinking you are praying that you won’t have to go there. Right now, all your hopes is on Omicron providing blanket immunity and ending the pandemic.
https://www.voiceforscienceandsolidarity.org/videos-and-interviews/dr-geert-vanden-bossche-immediate-notice-to-the-world-health-organization
PS: I wonder if Joel will address the speculation of Omicron being a lab construct.
Another nice article on Bossche’s ‘innate antibodies’ and B 1 cells Nature can be so intricate and masterful. Woe to all the posers that call themselves scientists and thinking they can improve on her at every turn.
I ask the audience, with Covid vaccination proving to be the mother of all flops, who is still not suspicious that modern science is overrated? In a lot of cases, isn’t it all just glorified witchcraft? The thought that these posers can ever find a cure for cancer is all the more depressing.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-12824-z
@Greg
Audience guy here says I got my COVID vaccinations, love it, and feeling good. Best kind of flop there is! Thank you healthcare professionals for flopping it out of the park!
Hospitalizations are way down during this wave in my neck of the woods. The data is very clear that vaccination protects against COVID hospitalization despite the tantrums and “oh all is woe” of the deniers.
Once again, proving only that Greg’s mind is very floppy indeed so far as the evidence has shown.
@Greg Paper actually says that B2 cells dot not produce targeted antibodies, because they pass antigen selection.Best hope is obviously prevent omicron,
You certainly picked the wrong cancer to lay your jizzhands on.
Bossche made a good point in that interview. If Omicron has escaped the vaccines, likely current boosters are also useless and serving as just placebos. And, this is of course not even considering their harmful side-effects.
PS: Answer the question Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH, as whether you agree that Omicron is a lab construct.
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/omicron-is-not-normal
@Greg Somebody have actually studied the matter:
Zinatizadeh MR, Zarandi PK, Zinatizadeh M, Yousefi MH, Amani J, Rezaei N. Efficacy of mRNA, adenoviral vector, and perfusion protein COVID-19 vaccines. Biomed Pharmacother. 2021 Dec 10;146:112527. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2021.112527. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 34906769; PMCID: PMC8660177
Boosters seems to be effective
Either way, that rat is still stinking. Is it really Omicron?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Weeks before the news of Omicron broke, Germany was experiencing a serious surge. I ran across an article suggesting that their infection rate was much higher than what it was for other surges and how ‘weird’ it was. After Omicron became news, there were also claims that it could’ve been in Europe much earlier.
Was it all a cover? Anyway, I am also linking an interesting article on Omicron and ADE.
Read more: https://www.digitaljournal.com/life/op-ed-weird-covid-stats-profiles-in-europe-raising-big-questions-german-fourth-wave-french-fifth-wave/article#ixzz7GjE7sNHG
https://popularrationalism.substack.com/p/will-omicron-save-us-from-vaccine
It is possible, of course, nobody noticed omicron before South Africans, Not probably,and not plot.
Omicron still causes a disease, and booster dose restores immunity. I posted a link, remember.
You are very predictable, Aarno; I imagine, I am also to you guys. Anyway, another interesting article on ADE.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7943455/
@Greg
Again with the ADE? Where is it in the real world data, to back up your statements?
This paper presented the hypothetical mechanisms, nothing more. In every documented case of ADE (and for most other vaccine problems) it was identified during the initial roll-out. After +18 months of vaccinations, and with Billions of people vaccinated – and everyone looking for ADE – are we realy still at the ‘hypothetical’ stage?
But I like your perseverance, and the way you don’t let the data get in your way.
Top five things I would say we know about Omicron
One, it appears to be only striking the vaxxed and vaxxed countries.
Two, it struck highly vaxxed Europe just after they were experiencing their last surge and with an inexplicably ridiculous infection rate.
Three, the CDC is doing a rather poor job tracking it, with their latest estimate off by 50 percentage points.
Four, it has burned itself out quickly in its epicenter of South Africa, and doesn’t seem to be taking off in other African countries.
Five, just about every country is attributing their surges to it and with what appears to be little effort to verify by sequencing.
Just random musings from me…
To your point:
Omicron started in South Africa, a low vax country. You shown no data of its effects in Europe, or in South Africa, either,
You are very predictible, too. And you never post any data to support your points. You just weave a story,
Yep. I love all these antivaxxers claiming that COVID vaccines “selected” for Omicron, when in fact Omicron was first detected in a country with relatively low vaccine uptake, far too low to have exerted a huge evolutionary selective pressure on the virus.
I also love how antivaxxers ignore the fact that, if vaccines can select for variants that evade prior immunity, so can “natural immunity,” which tends to be more variable, leaving more “room” at the “less immune” end for variants to evolve.
Quoting myself about top five things we know about Omicron…
What many don’t realize is sequencing to determine the itsy-bitsy parts of a virus is a crapshoot. Bold declaration by scientists that Omicron is spreading and dominating a lot of times also involves them talking out of their ass; it’s just theatre.
Perhaps more instructive is observing overall cases for trends. One undeniable one that is emerging is vaccination is appearing as a net negative. Here in Canada, Health Canada has confirmed this for almost a month now.
A telltale sign of ADE is when vaccination is appearing to do more harm that good. Is it Omicron dominating or is it impaired immunity. Hhmmnn!
https://www.cnn.com/2021/12/03/health/coronavirus-genome-sequencing-omicron/index.html
No. It’s not. Geez, it’s not as though sequencing technology hasn’t been around since the 1980s and the more rapid next generation sequencing technology in use now hasn’t been around nearly two decades. It’s not as though sequencing techniques aren’t very well established and reliable. Seriously, you know nothing about RNA and DNA sequencing. I do. I did a fair amount of it as a graduate student and then early in my career.?
The problem with sequencing SARS-CoV-2 isolates is not that it’s a “crapshoot.” It’s not. The techniques have been well established for many years. It’s that we haven’t done enough sequencing of SARS-CoV-2 isolates in this country.
Quoting myself…
Antiicipating my detractors, ‘but, Greg, what about all those undeniable cases of sickness and deaths that the vaccines are saving?’ Well, I suppose, we should take those in the context of the ‘deniable’ VAERS reports.
@ Greg
You write: “Another nice article on Bossche’s ‘innate antibodies’ and B 1 cells Nature can be so intricate and masterful. Woe to all the posers that call themselves scientists and thinking they can improve on her at every turn”
I would bet that you really DON’T understand the paper; but, no matter, here are some papers that clearly make the case that Bossche’s opinions should NOT be relied on (You, of course, reference his papers because he confirms your unscientific bias):
Gorski, David (2021 Mar 18). Countering Geert Vanden Bossche’s dubious viral open letter warning against mass COVID-19 vaccination. Science-Based Medicine.
Iannelli, Vincent (2021 Mar 17). Who is Geert Vanden Bossche? VAXOPEDIA.
Jarry, Jonathan (2021 Mar 24). The Doomsday Prophecy of Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche. Office for Science and Society. McGill University.
Kasprak, Alex (2021 Mar 26). Geert Vanden Bossche Stokes Fear of COVID-19 Vaccine To Promote His Own Flawed ‘Solution’. Snopes.com.
Turner, Robert (2021 Mar 23). Fact-Checking Geert Vanden Bossche. Cashing in on Covid Misinformation. Medika Life.
Like this — thanks! This toothpaste will give you plaque … lol. Don’t believe those other dentists.
Turner, Robert (2021 Mar 23). Fact-Checking Geert Vanden Bossche. Cashing in on Covid Misinformation. Medika Life.
@ Greg
You write: “I ask the audience, with Covid vaccination proving to be the mother of all flops, who is still not suspicious that modern science is overrated? In a lot of cases, isn’t it all just glorified witchcraft? The thought that these posers can ever find a cure for cancer is all the more depressing.”
First, you are too stupid to understand that one can’t find a cure for cancer because cancer is an overall heading for a number of very distinct different conditions. But, you continue to prove what an absolute DISHONEST moron you are. Nope the vaccine has been an enormous success, preventing many cases of serious disease, hospitalizations, long covid, and deaths with only a minuscule number of serious adverse events. “Witchcraft?” You need help.
A tale of two patients. Same demographic. Same age group. Same comorbidities by total chance. Both are quite overweight. I admitted both of these guys today:
The first is in his 70s and has a complex medical history. Came in with a stroke and chronic small vessel disease. COVID was found as an incidental finding. He isn’t even requiring oxygen or steroids. He’ll be outta here tomorrow. Complaining of a sore throat and some congestion but no shortness of breath. Got all three shots. His wife is at home with the same-just a cough and sore throat. She got the vaccines, too. We would have never seen him if not for the stroke.
The second came in on a life flight about an hour later. SEVERE hypoxic, hypercapnic respiratory failure. He shouldn’t be at our dinky hospital but we were the only ICU bed for hundreds of miles. He’s requiring massive O2 levels to keep his paO2 in the 40s. He will probably die in the next 48 hours. No shots. And—you can’t make this up—he’s been on Ivermectin pills as “prophylaxis” for months and then started on the FLCC outpatient miracle cocktail when he became symptomatic. He still had all of the stuff on him when he was flown in and the RN asked me what to do with it. Some pharmacy in Idaho gave it to him. His wife is en route to a major center in CA for last-resort ECMO. I don’t know if she was taking all of that garbage, too, but I’m betting she was.
But…”The vaccines are a massive failure!!”
But…”Forced medical procedure!!”
After all the crap I hear and read from anti-vax or natural health outlets/ websites and from scoffers at RI on a daily basis, Dr Yeti provides the greatly needed antidote to all their elaborate BS artistry with every comment he makes, telling the truth, horrible as it is. No wonder alties despise real HCWs: they reveal reality and save lives.
I got another one in overnight. She was doing ivermectin and some kind of concoction involving apple cider vinegar? I stopped asking questions. She turned up in an urgent care a few days ago, refused to be tested for covid, and was given the standard, outpatient meds for bacterial pneumonia. Yesterday around noon she stumbled to her neighbor’s door saying she couldn’t breathe and collapsed. EMS brought her here. She’s about 12-18 hours away from a vent if things keep going the way they are. Still refusing to let us swab her but we sent the serology off and it’s positive. She doesn’t believe it but is still demanding we give her back her ivermectin. She old me this morning: “If I could walk I would walk out of here.” I just don’t understand these people.
I have a theory that we will start seeing more and more IVM in the hospitals because these are the only people left who have no protection. They’re unvaxxed and never got the virus. They’re the only ripe pool of potential bad cases left. Which is to say-Omicron seems to be a mixed blessing. For people with immunity it is an annoying cold. It rarely gets into the lungs, from what I have seen so far, if you have the vaccines or had covid in the past.
However, if you didn’t get vaccinated and never had covid? You’re older or young and very obese? Well…omicron is as bad as the previous strains for you. All the HCQ and IVM in the world won’t save you. What these 280# guys with their beards and ARs don’t realize is that they are a vulnerable population. They are the vulnerable population right now. Covid doesn’t give a crap if you think it’s just a cold and your freedom is more important than getting a vaccine. It doesn’t care if you are some logger or think you are really “fit” because you work with your hands all day.
All that matters is your cardiopulmonary reserve. Can’t jog the length of a football field without coughing up a lung? Carrying around 15+ extra pounds of body fat? Refused the vaccine? It will find you. You will get sick. You could die.
Alties would rather not get to meet the HCWs. At least we make an attempt to stay healthy and out of the hospital.
@MedicalYeti
These vaccines are at best a very temporary solution. More vaccines will be needed every few months, or for each new variant, and the risk of side effects will increase.
What you MDs should have been telling your patients all along is to stop being fat and lazy. That alone would prevent most of the serious covid cases.
Instead, you tell them “Well you should exercise, but if you don’t feel like it, you can take these pills and vaccines.”
It is your hatred of natural preventative health that has caused the pandemic deaths, and the obesity epidemic.
Spoken exactly like someone who’s never spoken to a real doctor. Every single one I’ve ever had the pleasure to deal with speaks to me about diet and exercise…every…single…one.
Do you honestly think we don’t talk to patients about their obesity and the attendant risks thereof? Really?
I think the best therapy for IR would be to say — You are ignorant and disturbed. To fix it please eat this lovely clay and sleep outdoors in winter (these supplements will exactly help).
@IR
“It is your hatred of natural preventative health that has caused the pandemic deaths, and the obesity epidemic.”
Such hatred also causes jay walking so I’m told. I appear to have sold my laughing stock too soon. This is like watching someone try to outscream a firetruck. Ridiculous post most ever.
Can I see your internet doctor’s license?
There are many reasons i support vaccination: understanding the science, having been concerned about elderly and chronically ill family members and having worked with immuno-compromised people
but one of the strongest was-
I was a grad student who had no health issues and was thin; my friend visited from out of town and we had great plans because it was just prior to New Year’s THEN on NYE, I got really sick. Like this year, it was on a weekend, so no easy access to doctors and I didn’t want to go to emergency so I stuck it out miserably until IIRC Tuesday.
I couldn’t breathe well, was wheezing and coughing up small amounts of blood. It was horrible. Bronchitis. The meds they gave me for cough suppression made me extremely nauseous and the replacement meds did little good. I coughed for weeks, i had a hard time eating and sleeping and was exhausted.. Finally, another doctor gave me ( I think) dexameth. and antibiotics which helped. I was much better by April.
I never want to go through something like that again.
@Denice Walter
What are you trying to say? That there is a vaccine to prevent bronchitis??
Are you trying to say that if we don’t get every possible vaccines we are sure to get horribly sick?
Your message is very confusing.
A healthy lifestyle helps prevent infectious diseases, but it’s no guarantee. And being thin can help prevent covid, but not bronchitis.
I almost never get any infectious diseases, and I never had a flu shot. I had the flu once, many years ago. I had a moderate case of omnicron covid, since it’s a new virus most of us had no immunity against.
Infectious diseases are far from the worst health challenges modern people face. Better to put energy into preventing diabetes, cancer and heart disease, by avoiding the deadly modern lifestyle.
Acute bronchitis can occur as a consequence of influenza ( see Mayo clinic/ bronchitis).
Covid and influenza are preventable or made less dangerous through vaccination.
In my own case, I’ve hardly ever been sick ( except for measles- I got it before I got the new vaccine). I’ve never been overweight, I eat more carefully than most people and – what is most important– I had very elderly/ seriously ill family members around me and counselled people with hiv/ aids.
What might be a mild flu for me might have really harmed one of these at risk individuals.
Whatever the cause, having trouble breathing is not a desirable state of affairs. I would never want to be in that position again so I had no problems with Covid vaccines . Covid makes breathing difficult and often requires oxygen or ventilation,
“What are you trying to say? That there is a vaccine to prevent bronchitis??”
Yes.
In addition to influenza vaccines, anti-pneumoccocal and Hib vaccines can prevent bronchitis.
“Are you trying to say that if we don’t get every possible vaccines we are sure to get horribly sick?”
We can markedly lessen our chances of contracting a range of distressing, serious and fatal infections by getting recommended vaccines.
If you explain why this confuses you, we may be able to help.
It would also be interesting to know why you think physicians are betraying their overweight patients by counseling proper diet and adequate exercise. Do you believe there’s a cheap, wildly effective and safe fat-burning supplement that the Medical Establishment doesn’t want us to know about?
@Lawrence
“Spoken exactly like someone who’s never spoken to a real doctor. Every single one I’ve ever had the pleasure to deal with speaks to me about diet and exercise…every…single…one.”
I don’t need to speak to doctors very often, fortunately. Sounds like you ignore their advice … every … single … one.
What are you blathering about? I bike 20 miles per day, never gotten COVID, only had the flu a couple of times, and a probably am in much better health than you…and I listen to the advice of actual health professionals.
@ Lawrence
Indie Rebel is the kind of person that knows what you think better than you do.
A telepath.
@Denice Walter
“Covid makes breathing difficult and often requires oxygen or ventilation,”
OFTEN requires oxygen or ventilation? Are you kidding?? HOW OFTEN???
And by the way, I got the vaccines just in case they are any use in protecting my friends and relatives who have risk factors. NOT because I was worried about myself. And I got covid (between vaccines) and had NO trouble breathing AT ALL.
I know plenty of folks who went to war and didn’t die..therefore war is perfectly safe and no one dies.
What a maroon,
@Lawrence
“I know plenty of folks who went to war and didn’t die..therefore war is perfectly safe and no one dies.”
People slip and fall getting out of the bathtub. Let’s worry about that. Or they choke to death while eating a brussels sprout.
We literally do worry about people slipping and falling getting out of the bathtub. Ever see those MedAlert ads on TV? lol
Both slipping in their bathtubs and COVID are reducable. So let os worry abput both
@MedicalYeti
“Do you honestly think we don’t talk to patients about their obesity and the attendant risks thereof? Really?”
Not in any kind of helpful way that would improve their lives. You tell them to lose weight by eating less. You tell them to exercise 20 minutes 3 times a week. Unhelpful, harmful, advice.
Harmful? Dafuq?
And don’t get me started on your reductionist thinking about how every doctor counsels healthy lifestyle. You really are just here to sling turd around and feel good about yourself, aren’t you?
One might note that you’re just pitching a Gumby fit rather than setting everybody straight. You’re really quite the empty vessel.
@MedicalYeti
So I got it right. 20 minutes of exercise 2 times a week. Lose weight by eating less.
You’re pathetic. It’s been said before but it bears repeating you are SICK SICK SICK. Now you’re on here smugly accusing doctors of ignoring the single biggest health crisis in our country today. What’s more, you imply it’s a character flaw or that overweight people “Deserve their comeuppance.” I got news for you, jabroni, the overwhelming majority of fat people don’t want to be fat.
Not that it matters but the current minimum recommendations are 150 mins of exercise a week at perceived rate of exertion 7 out of 10. You’d do well with 20 mins of intense counseling twice a week, though.
Probably not sufficient counseling, even on an inpatient basis.
Accuse your opponents of being stupid or crazy. I could very easily do the same, but it’s a STUPID way to argue.
So you recommend 2 and a half hours PER WEEK. No wonder your patients stay fat, especially while lowering their metabolism by eating less.
@Indie Rebel Now this is an interesting theory. Eating less would make you obese ? Metabolism and thing metaboliaed are separate things.
@MedicalYeti
“What’s more, you imply it’s a character flaw or that overweight people “Deserve their comeuppance.””
I didn’t imply anything like that. You must have trouble with reading comprehension.
I said MDs give them bad advice.
They would not say eat less ?
@Aarno Syvänen
Eating less is bad advice. Most MDs have no understanding of metabolic syndrome.
Eating less make you fat ? Now this a really stupid. In see low carb diet here. Where you think fat you eat will go ? It stays in your body, because it is not in your excrement.
Modify template appropriately:
“OFTEN requires oxygen or ventilation? Are you kidding?? HOW OFTEN???”
@Dangerous Bacon
“We can markedly lessen our chances of contracting a range of distressing, serious and fatal infections by getting recommended vaccines.”
In other words, get every vaccine the drug industry promotes.
“It would also be interesting to know why you think physicians are betraying their overweight patients by counseling proper diet and adequate exercise.”
Twenty minutes 3 times a week is NOT ADEQUATE EXERCISE!!!!
And the advice to eat less ignores what is known about metabolic syndrome!
“Do you believe there’s a cheap, wildly effective and safe fat-burning supplement that the Medical Establishment doesn’t want us to know about?”
No, I do not.
“…the advice to eat less ignores what is known about metabolic syndrome!”
On the contrary, eating less (and healthier) and exercising more are mainstays of treating metabolic syndrome.
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/the-metabolic-syndrome
The optimal treatment for ignorance is education, not trolling harder.
The advice from the Royal Australian College of General Practice (primary care medicine) also lists diet and exercise as part of the treatment plan for metabolic syndrome:
https://www.racgp.org.au/getattachment/ff38cfe6-cc22-4ea8-bdc0-5520ff81df5e/20040413nelson.pdf
You will notice that vaccines are approved by FDA. Drug industry promotion is not enough. These are not supplements, after all.
New year, same old kooks. It’s enough to make me want to…want to…sing. Yes, sing!
(with apologies to Huey Lewis etc.)
Yeah-eah!
I want a new troll
One that won’t make me sick
One that won’t blow my brain
Or want to speak ’bout politics
I want a new troll
One that’ll make me laugh not sob
One that won’t bore too much
Something more than a basement slob
One that won’t make me angry
Wondering what to say
One that makes me think like a scientist likes to do
When I’m talking to you
I want a new troll
One that won’t be a dud
One that won’t stay too long
And won’t boil my blood
I want a new troll
One that won’t go astray
One that won’t drone on all night
One that won’t make me type all day
One that won’t make me nervous
Wondering what to do
One that makes me think like a scientist likes to do
When I’m talking to you
I’m talking to you, maybe
I want a new troll
One that does what it should
One that won’t make me feel so sad
One that will make me feel real good
I want a new troll
One that’ll make me laugh out loud
One that won’t make me type too much
One that’ll sometimes doubt
One that won’t make me nervous
Wondering what to do
One that makes me think like a scientist likes to do
When I’m talking with you
I’m talking to you
Who ya gonna call?
Troll busters!
@squirrelelite
“Who ya gonna call?”
Your personal Jesus.
Feeling unknown and you’re all alone
Flesh and bone by the telephone
Lift up the receiver, I’ll make you a believer
Take second best, put me to the test
Things on your chest you need to confess
I will deliver, you know I’m a forgiver
Reach out and touch faith
Good video. I thought the mountains in the background looked a bit like Old Tucson. But when I read Depeche Mode are from the UK, I guessed Spain, which is acually where that was shot.
One of Rolling Stone’s Top 500 Songs of All Time!
For a rather different performance, check out this cover.
https://youtu.be/jNKV1m3Ea0E
@ squirrelelite
“Good video.”
Thank you for your video too.
First time today I have to see a doctor in years. Feels like being manhandled by a firing squad.
Bets are I am going to end up locked up.
Because my positions still haven’t changed. (and never will).
And because same causes yield same consequences.
And I do not care about the consequences anymore.
@ F68.10:
Monsieur F, I hope that the direct opposite prevails – you need more freedom and agency to express yourself ( unless of course if you beat up people in actuality not just metaphorically as you do here- which I firmly doubt).
Your writing, mathematical exploration and teaching are valuable assets.
@ Denice Walter
Went OK. First time I managed to refuse medical care. I made the discussion very tense. And managed to convey the message that I will not get lured by disability insurance benefits into consenting into care.
First… ahem… “victory”. (I know it sounds weird to claim as a victory the right not to benefit from disability insurance benefits, but that’s how weird can get.)
I feel relieved. Also feel relieved by the support I got from one of my parents in that task.
And I also got the first positive feedback by a seasoned mathematician on my work. I feel I might finally break out from mathematical solipsism now that some recognised though retired mathematician is willing to consider the theorems my mind spew over the last two years. One in particular. He seems genuinely interested.
I feel even more relieved.
Going to eat a steak outside to celebrate that. Maybe the first meal I’ll really have enjoyed in years. Not one I’ll mechanically ingest as mere fuel for an engine. We’ll see how that meal goes.
Applause!
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “And the advice to eat less ignores what is known about metabolic syndrome!”
Yep, if person has metabolic syndrome; and many do; but, for instance “Dietary carbohydrate restriction reduces blood glucose levels, contributes to weight loss, and reduces the use of several medications that may be prescribed for metabolic syndrome. AND “A systematic review of four randomized controlled trials said that, in the short term, a paleolithic nutritional pattern improved three of five measurable components of the metabolic syndrome in participants with at least one of the components.” Wikipedia. Metabolic Syndrome. So, not exactly eating less; but change in diet, thus avoiding or dealing with, among other things, Type 2 diabetes.
But, as the old saying goes, even a broken clock gets the time right twice daily, so you are right about one thing when you write: “Twenty minutes 3 times a week is NOT ADEQUATE EXERCISE!!!!” Yep, at least 30 minutes every day minimum. I am 75, walk my dog briskly one mile twice daily, then almost every day 30 minutes on a stationary bike, level 6, 8 is highest. Prior to the pandemic, went to local YMCA, swam 1500 yds three times a week and alternated with 45 minutes moderate weight lifting and 30 minutes on stationary bike; but still walked my dog mile twice daily. The Y has re-opened; but I don’t know if will rejoin or not. My car is old and it is 20 minute drive each way.
You write: “And by the way, I got the vaccines just in case they are any use in protecting my friends and relatives who have risk factors. NOT because I was worried about myself. And I got covid (between vaccines) and had NO trouble breathing AT ALL.”
You continue to display just how stupid you are. First, most who were infected with covid didn’t develop trouble breathing; but a significant number did. And since you got the first shot that didn’t eliminate risk; but reduced it. You just keep seeing things as dichotomies; but the real world doesn’t work that way.
You write: “n other words, get every vaccine the drug industry promotes.”
The fact that they promote them doesn’t mean they aren’t valuable. As I’ve written before, go to a supermarket, there you can buy potato chips, soft drinks, and candy or fresh veggies, fruits, whole grain breads, etc. The manufacturers make a profit on each and so does the supermarket and both try to get people to buy their products. Making a profit doesn’t say if something is good, bad, or anything in between, same with promoting the product.
What you have made absolutely clear over and over is that you don’t understand the history of vaccine-preventable disease, that you don’t understand immunology, that you don’t understand epidemiology and you’ve made it clear that you don’t care. Like Trump I guess you just consider yourself an intuitive genius.
I was volunteer in clinical trials for Moderna mRNA vaccine; but before I volunteered I devoted several weeks to reading on mRNA, mRNA vaccines, and S-Spike Protein and I’ve been following since then. If one goes to PubMed, for just Moderna’s vaccine there are almost 400 papers, some with follow-ups over six months, papers from around the world. If no vaccine had been developed and, though poorly carried out, no mitigations, instead of 820,000 dead we would easily have had 2 million or more.
Why don’t you just stop making a fool of yourself???
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
Eating less is bad advice because it ignores the importance of avoiding carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates. I agree about the paleo diet.
Exercise needed to prevent metabolic syndrome is at least one hour every day. To reverse metabolic syndrome you probably need more, and it doesn’t happen overnight. And recommending intense exercise is bad advice — intense exercise is exhausting especially for those who are out of shape. They will give up after the first week. The best exercise feels good and is easy, like fast walking or bicycling.
I doubt there are very many MDs who understand metabolic syndrome, so they tell their patients to eat less. And they don’t usually believe that exercise has anything to do with normalizing weight. Again, because they do not understand metabolic syndrome. It is necessary for the large muscles to move every day, to prevent mitochondria from being overwhelmed by excess glucose. Which leads to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, pre-diabetes, diabetes.
“And since you got the first shot that didn’t eliminate risk; but reduced it. ”
The first shot (J&J) had long worn off when I got covid. And I had not yet gotten the second. So there was NO vaccine protection going on. Omicron is basically a cold. Yet Fauci and his MSN are determined to keep the hysteria going.
“What you have made absolutely clear over and over is that you don’t understand the history of vaccine-preventable disease, that you don’t understand immunology, that you don’t understand epidemiology and you’ve made it clear that you don’t care.”
I have educated myself on all of that. Calling me stupid is your favorite debate strategy. All I have been reading for 2 years, pretty much, is about covid and the genetic vaccines. And that is on top of many years of reading about health and biology. I understand it well, but of course you can say I don’t. And I, in turn, can say you are full of turd. If you want to keep that debate strategy going, I know how to hurl insults.
Somebody get the message out to the Seventh-Day Adventists about their unhealthful dietary practices, pronto! Snap to, Japan!
@ Indie Rebel
I am going to explain something to you. In January 1970 I was a graduate student working on a Masters in Social Psychology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. I was at my desk around 7 pm when suddenly I started feeling real bad, so I went to my car, snowing, around 0 degrees F and drove home. I had a mattress on floor, took off my shoes and crashed. Next morning I was in real bad shape, so called a friend and he came over with his roommate, helped me to his car, and drove me to clinic at university. After about an hour the nurse realized just how sick I was and two campus police drove me to hospital. I had contracted Hong Kong flu and a secondary opportunistic bacterial infection. Fortunately, antibiotic resistance was just developing and I made a full recovery, though stayed home another week. I should explain that I never smoked, didn’t drink, was mainly vegetarian, lived a mile from campus and often walked, even if freezing weather, and several times a week swam around a mile freestyle. So I was in my 20s, extremely healthy, and a microbe attacked me. Since then I have always gotten the flu shot and started reading up on history of flu, etc. I understand that some years not good match, other years better; but even then only guarantees protection less than 50%; but that doesn’t mean NO protection, still can reduce severity. And in 1981, I was doing my doctorate in Gothenburg, Sweden, it was flu season and there was a delay in getting the vaccine out. I swam often, jogged, didn’t own a car, so bicycled or walked everywhere and by then was complete vegetarian and I got the flu. Fortunately, not as severe as Hong Kong; but I was pretty miserable for around 5 days.
The point is, that I was young, extremely healthy, and when we are attacked by a microbe that our immune systems don’t recognize, it doesn’t matter how healthy we are. I’m sure you don’t understand a word I’m saying. Since then I’ve devoted lots of time to reading and learning more about microbiology, immunology, infectious diseases, and I went on to study as a NIH post-doctoral research fellow, epidemiology. I really don’t give a shit if pharmaceutical companies make a reasonable profit on vaccines, I’m just glad vaccines exist and I can think of several diseases I would love for them to develop vaccines for. I would have loved to have been vaccinated for Hong Kong flu prior to January 1970! ! ! And if Covid variants become so different we need a booster every six months, then I will be first in line.
@Dangerous Bacon
“On the contrary, eating less (and healthier) and exercising more are mainstays of treating metabolic syndrome.”
That article says nothing about eating less! It recommends a Mediterranean diet, which is fine. Paleo is also healthy. Giving patients the advice to EAT LESS is stupid.
If you want to pretend that advice to lose weight has nothing to do with eating less, that’s your delusion.
Physicians often couch dietary advice in the form of “eating smart” – less fat and sugar for instance – rather than merely saying “you need to eat less”, which can be counter-productive.*
Often though (especially in educating clinicians), the message is more direct.
“Similar to other chronic diseases, the metabolic syndrome is a complex, lifestyle-dependent illness. Its solution is not difficult to achieve: eat less, exercise more.”**
http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1783583/
I notice you ignored the section of the previously-linked article that stressed the importance of exercise, which also is a widely-accepted strategy for treating metabolic syndrome. Just an oversight on your part?
*One time I was doing an ER rotation when the attending doc and I went in to see a morbidly obese patient who had a relatively minor complaint. After completing his exam and arranging for treatment and followup, he advised her “You need to eat less.” Very true, but not especially holistic on his part…
**the fact that it’s actually pretty difficult for most people to achieve long-term doesn’t detract from its usefulness.
It’s quaint to see someone going originalist on The Drinking Man’s Diet.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “The first shot (J&J) had long worn off when I got covid. And I had not yet gotten the second. So there was NO vaccine protection going on. Omicron is basically a cold. Yet Fauci and his MSN are determined to keep the hysteria going.” AND you write, concerning your knowledge of “genetic vaccines”, health and biology: “I have educated myself on all of that. Calling me stupid is your favorite debate strategy. All I have been reading for 2 years, pretty much, is about covid and the genetic vaccines. And that is on top of many years of reading about health and biology. I understand it well, but of course you can say I don’t.
First, as usual you don’t understand the basics of immunology. Nope. the first shot had NOT long worn off. When one gets a vaccine, the adaptive immune system, B-cells that produce antibodies and t-cells recognize the specific antigens and begin revving up. If no real infection, the frontline troops, mainly antibodies diminish. However, what you don’t understand is that a small number of those antibodies continue to circulate through ones body; but, in addition, short-lived plasma cells, long-lived plasma cells, and memory B-cells continue. The short-lived plasma cells circulate and if they recognize a new invader, they can churn out antibodies at super speeds and high amounts and they are backed up by the latter two. As for Omicron being basically a cold, yep, for many; but how do you explain the large number of hospitalizations? It is, on the whole milder; but it is infecting so many more people who are NOT vaccinated and though the risk percentage-wise is low, still we end up with very sick people.
You write: “Eating less is bad advice because it ignores the importance of avoiding carbohydrates, especially refined carbohydrates. I agree about the paleo diet. . . “Exercise needed to prevent metabolic syndrome is at least one hour every day. To reverse metabolic syndrome you probably need more, and it doesn’t happen overnight.””
First, I wrote: “Dietary carbohydrate restriction reduces blood glucose levels, contributes to weight loss” So, I guess you are too stupid to even understand what I write.
As for metabolic syndrome, you don’t seem to really understand that it has arisen from several causes; e.g., an overall increase in caloric consumption, a huge increase in refined sugar intake (1950s average American around 40 lbs per year, now up to 140 lbs per year), high salt, and little fiber. If one adds sugar, salt to food and removed/reduces fiber shelf life extended and tastes great; but of little nutritional value. And when I was in school we had 1 hour of Physical Education daily. I remember President Kennedy’s physical fitness council. Now, from what I’ve read, PE not a major concern of many school districts. And we didn’t have computers, etc. so when not studying I was at playground nearby, volleyball, basketball, etc. So, first, to understand metabolic syndrome one has to understand why we are approaching half of our population being obese and high levels of type 2 diabetes. And since patients represent both categories and individuals, treatment needs to be both general and tailored. And, yep, they have to reduce calories and increase exercise; but even running a mile only burns off about 100 calories; but continuous exercise does change bodies metabolic rate. But to lose weight need both caloric reduction and exercise; but most research indicates more caloric reduction. However, not crash diets and also, of course, better diets, getting calories from healthy foods. And expecting people to do an hour a day is too much. A good half hour walk, also using stairs when possible, will do the job. Ones metabolic rate efficiency changes after about 20 minutes of moderate exercise on a regular basis.
Wow. You claim a PhD in cognitive psychology, have devoted a huge amount of time to reading on evolution, are so knowledgeable about metabolic disorder, and now claim to have read a lot about health and biology. And yet you don’t understand the basics of immunology, wrong about first shot of vaccine wearing off, ignoring even the news about number of hospitalized Omicron variant patients, etc. And regarding evolution, you wanted a “spiritual” component and refused to read anyone who you labelled as an atheist as if ones religion determine completely ones science. I even gave references to two devout Christians who have written books on evolution. And finally, your approach to Fauci, government employees, attacking drug companies because of profits (I’ve already refuted this), and overall extremism based on what? Reading RFK, social media, Fox News? You see the world in black and white, extremes of black and white. This is not how an intelligent, educated person works.
So, as I have said, you don’t know what you are talking about.
@ Indie Rebel
One more thing about your getting one shot for covid. First shot from mRNA vaccines does confer some immunity; but not as high as after 2nd shot; but, even 1st shot does lead to short-lived plasma cells, etc. So, probability is that had you not received even the 1st shot you would have been much sicker. However, as opposed to your world of extremes of black and white and absolute certainty, it is impossible for me to know how your individual immune system reacted to the vaccine or which variant infected you. And despite your probably believing you live a very healthy life, I don’t know and you don’t know if you have some genetic predisposition, etc. All I can do is base what I write on actually having a strong basic understanding of immunology, vaccines, and infectious diseases. And you give yourself away when you write: “and the genetic vaccines.” The mRNA vaccines are NOT genetic vaccines!!!
https://genetherapynetwork.com/gene-replacement/genetic-modulation-of-immune-cells-overview/gene-based-vaccines-how-do-they-work/
@Joel A. Harrison, PhD, MPH
“The mRNA vaccines are NOT genetic vaccines!!!”
Yes, they are called genetic vaccines. You are ignorant.
@ Indie Rebel
You write: ““The mRNA vaccines are NOT genetic vaccines!!!”
Yes, they are called genetic vaccines. You are ignorant.
Most experts intentionally do NOT call them genetic vaccines because they cannot enter the cell nucleus and, thus, cannot affects ones genes. However, a minority do call them genetic vaccines because they use a component of genes, mRNA. I prefer NOT to call them genetic vaccines because people then believe they can affect ones genes; but, I will accept that you were right to call them genetic vaccines, even if the majority of experts don’t call them such.
Well, as usual, during our exchanges, you pounce on one point I made, ignoring all the others that clearly show you don’t understand how vaccines work, don’t understand the immune system. And, calling me ignorant when I simply based what I wrote on the vast majority of experts is another example of your approach to extremes.
You are not a scientist. You don’t think like a scientist. You are an ideologue. In some ways you remind me of the Alt Right, QAnon believers, and many more. People who see the world in extremes of black and white. Just to repeat one example, your labeling anyone who sees evolution different from you as an atheist and, your clearly unscientific approach to reject automatically what they write, not even willingness to read. Your bringing in “spiritual”, etc.
So, in one respect mRNA vaccines are genetic vaccines; but only because they use one aspect of genetics; but, on the other hand, they are NOT genetic vaccines because they don’t affect genes. By poor analogy, imagine taking the water pump from a car; perhaps using it for something else. Yep, one could still call it “car engine” something or other; but not really.
So, I accept that you were right; but, given just how little you really understand and your unscientific ideological extremist black and white approach to things, so what? As I’ve written before, even a broken clock can get the time right twice a day, so even someone who doesn’t really understand a host of things can sort of get a few things right.
And I repeat that your paranoid hyper extremist belief that Fauci, government scientists, those receiving government grants, etc. all, can’t be trusted. And your belief that since drug companies make a profit on vaccines, then couldn’t possibly be that vaccines also work. As I’ve written, profits are made on everything sold, so don’t determine their value.
@Dangerous Bacon
The standard MD advice is to restrict calories and exercise a little. That advice is wrong, and does not work for metabolic syndrome. The advice should be “Eat less of carbohydrates and eat NO refined carbohydrates.” No one gets fat from eating too much kale. And reversing metabolic syndrome requires at least an hour of moderate exercise every day. More than one hour is better.
Eating cholesterol does NOT raise cholesterol. Eating natural fat does NOT cause obesity.
Not sure exactly which doctors you’ve spoken to…because again, none of the ones I’ve had the utmost pleasure of working with have ever said anything like that.
It’s about watching what you eat, have an exercise plan suited to the individual, and monitoring weight.
You seem to be supremely uneducated about things you claim to know something about.
Where does cholesterol you eat go ? How does it disappear ?
Where does fat you eat go ? It would be turned back to fat, if you do not need surplus energy. Besides, it would go trough blood vessels, check atheroslerotic plaque.
Cushing syndrome is a hormonal disorder associated with obesity. Insulin is not involved.
Interesting thing is that you agree with food companies. It is not calories you eat, you know, it is lack of exercise. But problem is that exercise does not burn that many calories, you should do 10 hours of hard work to do that.
Mediterranian diet is actually reducing saturated fats (olive oil, wine, seafood). Paleodiet does same thing if actually you actually eat just game, tubers and berries
“Eating natural fat does NOT cause obesity.”
I hear that IR’s new book “The Natural Fat Eat Yourself Healthy Diet” features scrumptious recipes like chicken skin fried in lard and then drenched in palm oil. All-natural fat, good for eliminating obesity and preventing metabolic syndrome.
Is there also fat that is not natural and one can eat?
@ Indie Rebel
You write: “No one gets fat from eating too much kale. And reversing metabolic syndrome requires at least an hour of moderate exercise every day. More than one hour is better.
Eating cholesterol does NOT raise cholesterol. Eating natural fat does NOT cause obesity.”
One cup of kale = 34 calories, so one could fill up on kale and still be getting fewer calories. As for cholesterol, you are partially right. Cholesterol in foods only contributes slightly to overall cholesterol levels; but types of fats do; e.g., saturated, etc.
“The biggest influence on blood cholesterol level is the mix of fats and carbohydrates in your diet—not the amount of cholesterol you eat from food. . . Fat and cholesterol can’t dissolve in water or blood. Instead, the body packages fat and cholesterol into tiny, protein-covered particles called lipoproteins. Lipoproteins can transport a lot of fat; they mix easily with blood and flow with it. Some of these particles are big and fluffy, while others are small and dense. The most important ones are low-density lipoproteins (LDL), high-density lipoproteins (HDL) , and triglycerides . . . The types of fat in the diet help determine the amount of total, HDL, and LDL cholesterol in the bloodstream. The types and amount of carbohydrate in the diet also play a role. Cholesterol in food matters, too, but not nearly as much. . . However, people who have heart disease or diabetes should monitor.” And heart disease and diabetes are often part of the metabolic syndrome. [Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Cholesterol. The Nutrition Source] NOTE. the fats in diet, so you are WRONG about natural fats!
And, besides heart disease and diabetes “For some people, though, blood cholesterol levels rise and fall very strongly in relation to the amount of cholesterol eaten. For these “responders,” avoiding cholesterol rich foods can have a substantial effect on blood cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, at this point there is no way other than by trial and error to identify responders from non-responders to dietary cholesterol. [ibid]
And, though I think it would be great if people got an hour a day of moderate exercise, as I wrote, for instance, running or walking a mile only burns 100 calories, so, even if one ran 3 miles in an hour, reasonable for older people, one bagel with something on it would already more than compensate. Diet, choice of foods, more important and 30 minutes a day reasonable amount to expect of people. And as with Kale, one can choose foods that are highly nutritious, filling; but lower in calories.
And, as I mentioned above, I get more than an hour exercise per day and am a vegan, taking supplements; but not megadoses. And, at 75 my total cholesterol on yearly exams is usually around 175 and my HDLs in the 60s. My blood sugar low. My BMI within acceptable range; but I have gained about 3 lbs during lockdown since exercise less that did when went to local YMCA, and sometimes out of sheer boredom snack a little, half bowl of whole grain cereal, no sugar added with soy milk, etc. Soy milk does contain about 8 grams of sugar per cup.
@ Indie Rebel
You say you have devoted a lot of time to reading on “genetic vaccines” and health, etc; but the question is “reading what?” I know you read RFK’s “Th Real Anthony Fauci” and wonder if you read articles on various blogs. In addition, reading something doesn’t mean you understand it. Given your rigid extreme black and white bias, maybe you just see what you choose to see. I also read a lot, including textbooks, monographs, lots of articles I find on searches of PubMed, and also have bookmarked health/public health departments in several nations, including Sweden, UK, and Canada, as well as our own.
And one simple question: You claim you have read up on “genetic vaccines”. And I accepted that some have called them that; but: Didn’t you notice that the vast majority of papers, monographs, CDC, FDA, NIH websites intentionally don’t call them that and some even explain why???
@ Indie Rebel
I just did several searches, Google, Google Scholar, and PubMed. I found more instances of calling mRNA and DNA vaccines, genetic vaccines. So, I’ll give you that. A difference between me and you. I wasn’t completely wrong; but I wasn’t right, so I admit it, you were right. However, as I explained, calling them genetic vaccines allow antivaxxers to claim they affect our genes, which they don’t.
Now to my healthy lunch, brussel sprouts in light olive oil, salt and pepper, with corn and peas, topped with a sliced vegan (soy), Italian sausage and a slice of whole grain bread toasted with tofutti (soy cream cheese) on it.
And on Sunday, four week interval, I will again donate one unit of plasma and one unit of platelets. My goal is to make at least 25 gallons of blood donations before I can’t anymore; but I’ve heard of people donating even in mid 80s, so maybe I will make 30 gallons or more. I hope so.
Bingo!
That’s right, I just completely filled my bingo card with the astounding array of science-denialism shown by our new … commenter, IR.
Hey, other long-timers around here, does IR sounds a bit like some of our old not-friends like Zebra and coolr?
Talk about a time warp of wrong and cruel.
https://thehill.com/briefingroom-blogroll/586308-guests-urged-to-be-vaccinated-for-party-at-anti-vax-kennedys-home?fbclid=IwAR2JmKU724w_JSv3noRh839q0eH1cW0ZS6w1s4VxaOITtDQtEEVy4sESXUY
And, you know that the experiment is a bust when Dr Sahin is scoffing at a third booster.
Translation: C’mon guys, the original antigenic sin doesn’t scare us. Allow us another kick at the can. Please?!
https://theeastcountygazette.com/biontech-ceo-claims-triple-vaccination-for-omicron-wont-stop-its-spread/
@ Greg
As usual you post based on what one person writes if it confirms your ignorant biases. You don’t even understand original antigen sin. Basically, if one develops antibodies to some microbe by vaccination, then giving a new vaccine for a “slight” variant of the microbe will not build antibodies as high as it would have if there had not been a previous vaccine. What you don’t understand is that any vaccination elicits both antibodies and t-cells and both have a range of cross-immunities, that is, they also protect us, though not as well, against variants. So, in the vast majority of cases, what one ends up with is some cross-immunity against the variant from the first vaccine and fewer, but not zero, antibodies to the variant. Quite simply, one is still better protected than if without any vaccine.
Keep making a stupid fool of yourself.
I and others have shown just how wrong you have been over and over; but instead of actually trying to learn, you just keep jumping at conclusions.
[…] co-opted the Nazi genocide of European Jews for his antivaccine message and in his most recent book referred to the “final solution” and disingenuously refused to acknowledge what he meant or apologize for […]
[…] More recently, he’s ceased to be embarrassed by comparisons of vaccines to the “final solution.” It seems unnecessary to emphasize that Del Bigtree, too, is very antivaccine, having […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates that “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement that has used Kennedy’s rhetoric for more than 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy made references to the Nazis and the Holocaust regarding vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to make use of such comparisons signifies, “he means it,” stated Dr. David Gorski, a most cancers surgeon at Wayne State College College of Medication in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine motion who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski stated Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski stated that Kennedy was making Nazi- and Holocaust comparisons in regard to vaccines. since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] He continues to use such comparisons, indicating, “He means it,” said Dr. David Gorsky, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for more than 15 years. Gorsky says Kennedy is making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines At least 2013. Since then, […]
[…] Dass er solche Vergleiche weiterhin verwendet, zeige, „dass er es ernst meint“, sagte er DR. David Gorsky, ein Krebschirurg an der Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit und ein Kritiker der Anti-Impfstoff-Bewegung, der Kennedys Rhetorik seit über 15 Jahren verfolgt. Gorski sagte, Kennedy habe in Bezug auf Impfstoffe Nazi- und Holocaust-Bezüge gemacht seit mindestens 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] El hecho de que haya seguido usando tales comparaciones indica que “lo dice en serio”, dijo el Dr. David Gorski, cirujano oncológico de la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad Estatal de Wayne en Detroit y crítico del movimiento contra las vacunas que ha seguido la retórica de Kennedy durante más de 15 años. Gorski dijo que Kennedy ha estado haciendo referencias nazis y del Holocausto en relación con las vacunas. desde al menos 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. In the past few years, Gorski said, Kennedy has been more open about using such language, which he […]
[…] That he has continued to use such comparisons indicates, “he means it,” said Dr. David Gorski, a cancer surgeon at Wayne State University School of Medicine in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine movement who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski said Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]
[…] in my opinion, has probably done more to sow distrust in vaccines, including routine childhood vaccinations that have saved millions of lives, than just about any […]
[…] That he has continued to make use of such comparisons signifies, “he means it,” stated Dr. David Gorski, a most cancers surgeon at Wayne State College College of Medication in Detroit and a critic of the anti-vaccine motion who has tracked Kennedy’s rhetoric for over 15 years. Gorski stated Kennedy has been making Nazi and Holocaust references in relation to vaccines since at least 2013. […]