Covid vsccine

Surely you don't believe that a floating quote with nothing (that we're being shown) behind it is somehow valid and persuasive, right?  

Like, would you be persuaded if I posted something like that?  I sincerely hope not (and I'm sure it is the case that you wouldn't be).  

I linked the actual papers. You’re alluding to a video from a felon debarred by the FDA. Seems legit.

What is so important about this video?  You've said repeatedly that "there is a LOT of conflicting data"....

That's an interesting, important claim, right?  So...where's the data?  Honest question.  Saying "there are a LOT of videos making wild claims about Covid" doesn't pack a lot of punch because, of course there are.  But saying there's a lot of "data" behind some big time claim should mean something.  Can we see the data?

There’s no need to generalize. We’re talking about something very specific here. I’ve shared the data for the vaccines to support the fact that they work. I never appealed to authority to back my claims, Fauci or otherwise. On the other hand the counter claim to actual evidence is an appeal to a video made by a charlatan and felon.

And there is no defense here. The defense of the claim is for the person who made it. I don’t need to defend anything, the guy who suggests that the vaccines don’t actually prevent people from getting sick, and it’s all a huge conspiracy, and the FDA is either hoodwinked or complicit, needs to defend that outrageous claim.

I've not said anything about Fauci or anything of the sort. And I think calling these "sides" is being extremely charitable to the people alleging the global conspiracy.  

Mostly, I'm just trying to wrap my head around some serious cognitive dissonance that I perceive:

Global scientific community with a bunch of triple-blind clinical data to back them up? Very fishy, something is definitely up here, I smell a massive conspiracy, can't fool me, I'm a skeptic

Guy who's literally already been convicted of felony healthcare fraud (and debarred) can't get his "study" published so he takes to YouTube? This looks solid, I think this guy's a straight shooter

Framing that kind of attitude as being "skeptical" is a really tough circle to square.  

I don't feel very emotional about my last post  . If it comes across that way, it's unintended.  

I have been hearing same / similar svart.   I don't have the research studies to "prove" it though - will check yours out as long as they are not too deep in science.  I just can't follow those - I'm just a musician - albeit a suspicious one.  LOL  I all got is random video and first hand accounts from Dr's....  

On the Remdesivir - I've heard that it's only effective in the first couple of days, and then it works pretty well.  Later on in the infection - not so good.  I know for sure it really helped my frail 91 y/o FIL to kick it quickly, but I'm sure the WHO would say that was coincidence.  And who (LOL) knows, maybe it was.  

Man where do y'all get this stuff? Looks like as of 2018 only about 4 of every 10,000 papers are retracted.

But at any rate there is truth that all papers are limited in scope. You need to be really careful taking the claims of a paper and applying them in different circumstances. This is why large and diverse sample sizes are so important, and why meta-analysis of multiple studies is considered much more valuable than any particular study.


All that being said. Those two papers should be understood. Ivermectin works in vitro. That doesn't mean it will be an effective therapy. The concentrations required to get this effect are not possible to get in the body with approved dosing -- "pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies suggest that achieving the plasma concentrations necessary for the antiviral efficacy detected in vitro would require administration of doses up to 100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans". The second paper is a review of ivermectin on similar viruses. Neither of which are clinical results. These should be read as possible treatments. And this was in June of last year. Since then we see things like this: "In this randomized clinical trial that included 476 patients, the duration of symptoms was not significantly different for patients who received a 5-day course of ivermectin compared with placebo (median time to resolution of symptoms, 10 vs 12 days; hazard ratio for resolution of symptoms, 1.07)."

Compare this with the studies y'all are dismissing on the vaccines which were conducted at dozens of locations around the globe with orders of magnitude more participants. I just don't get the disparity of skepticism being applied here.

Counting papers that are rejected as retractions doesn’t make any sense to me. That’s like counting people who are found innocent in the same bucket as with wrongful convictions.

And I don’t know what you want. Huge study, randomized, multiple location, double blind, placebo controlled, and a statistically significant response. I just don’t get it.

I one study the difference was like 197 to 3. How is the 200 not significant when it brings the number to nearly zero?? Or when the fatalities and hospitalizations are also brought to zero?

You make it sound like out of 40,000 the one group was 10,000 sick vs the other 10,200.

The article says when the contracts expire they won’t renew because they “need to focus on technologies that have proven their worth. mRNA vaccines are a clear case in point.” So they’ll be buying Pfizer and Moderna going forward.

Are you presenting this article as evidence that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are proven?

The J&J and AZ vaccines were/are going to to be a big arrow in the quiver for getting Covid under control in populations where an organized system of getting patients to return for a second dose is difficult-to-impossible. Like very remote, rural areas in the developing world or homeless populations. You can have a team of medical staff roll through and vaccinate people with one shot and be done with it. It remains to be seen whether this extreme caution (6 in 6.8 million of those severe blood clots with the J&J pause or 0.0000008824) is warranted or not. One thing is that, with this particular rare form of blood clots, the treatment used on 'regular' blood clots can make it worse, so the pause may serve as a way of making sure health care providers know that if they were to see a clot with someone who had the J&J vaccine, not to immediately use the 'regular' clot treatments. Either way, as is almost always the case, most people aren't going to dig into the stories and the big headlines will scare people off from those types of vaccines. I would bet that the PR/branding problem with AZ is more responsible for the EU changing plans than the (according to what we know right now) hyper-rare blood clot possible correlation.

Got my first moderna shot yesterday. Last night felt really out of it and tired. My arm started to ache pretty badly too. Was in bed by 9pm.

Today I'm really tired and my arm aches to the point where I can't lift it but I'm feeling a little less body achey. It's almost just a stiffness.

Strange stuff.