Probably someone you have been in contact with recently has got a positive case confirmed today.
SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)
- Thread starter Don't Kill Bill
- Start date
Probably someone you have been in contact with recently has got a positive case confirmed today.
Probably the contact was 8 days ago?
Probably to do with the day said exposure is supposed to have happened?
It it was 8 days ago, only 2 days left of the isolation period.
Does it say when the contact occurred? It might be that it’s taken a while to get a positive result so by the time they alerted you there’s only 2 days of your isolation period left
that makes sense yeah
that's slightly reassuring if that is the case, I guess.. I've actually had two tests in the last 8 days as well
nah, it's surprisingly sparse of information - doesn't even tell me where it was. But yes I think you are correct, thanks
No need for me to share it then you've obviously made up your mind. Scientists eh? complete bullshitters....
I said it sounds like bullshit. The onus is on you to prove otherwise. Which is obviously impossible without sharing the peer reviewed article you mentioned.
That study says the exact opposite though - 4 deaths per 100k vaccinations it says?
“the NNTV to prevent one death is between 9000 and 50,000”
42m have had one dose - 14,000 and rising lives saved. That is equal to an NNTV of 3,000. But it will continue to grow as time passes - even if no more vaccinations are done - it isn’t fixed. Also depends on COVID prevalence - which without vaccines and restrictions would be through the roof. It also doesn’t factor in hospitalisations - of which 42,000 have been avoided - not sure why they cite serious side effects but not COVID hospitalisation. 4 deaths per 100k sounds very high too…
That’s just me - not in any way scientific - struggles to use an excel pivot - doing back of a fag packet maths in 2 minutes…so I do question who peer reviewed it.
It's not my logic but What expertise do you have over these scientists? I going to hazard a guess that the authors of this study are eminently more qualified that Massive Spanner off redcafe or anyone else on here for that matter. Also the peer review seems to have been accepted but like I said this is not my study.
Well the fact that it's just you and not in anyway scientific is probably why I would likely take the peer reviewed scientific study done and peer reviewed by scientists but that's just me. Who made up the 14,000 lives saved and what data is that based on?
The first one from the WSJ is from the same bloke that invited the Doctor to the Senate and doesn't seem a great character. He has his angle.
The second article is well written though and it does seem the platforms have jumped on the word but they have been clear that it is because these people are telling the public to use a drug not yet proven, even if the evidence is positive so far. Very similar to Hydroxycloroquine.
I’ve read the study and it looks to me as though they haven’t differentiated between deaths caused by the vaccine from deaths from any cause after being vaccinated. Strictly speaking, being run over by a bus after being vaccinated is a reportable serious adverse event. Tells us feck all about the risks of taking the vaccine though.
Even taking that massive liberty, they still conclude an overall net benefit to vaccination (which doesn't get mentioned in the abstract, funnily enough).
As @Mickeza said, the most egregiously misleading way this data is presented is the idea that you can judge the success of the vaccination program simply by looking at NNTV when we know that the consequences of a completely uncontrolled surge has such a severe impact in addition to those who die from covid (hospitals running out of staff or oxygen, the economic and societal harm of prolonged lockdown etc etc etc)
Even taking that massive liberty, they still conclude an overall net benefit to vaccination (which doesn't get mentioned in the abstract, funnily enough).
As @Mickeza said, the most egregiously misleading way this data is presented is the idea that you can judge the success of the vaccination program simply by looking at NNTV when we know that the consequences of a completely uncontrolled surge has such a severe impact in addition to those who die from covid (hospitals running out of staff or oxygen, the economic and societal harm of prolonged lockdown etc etc etc)
Last edited:
We've had our worst spikes due to the Eid homecoming tradition.
BOR (Bed occupancy Rate) is above 90% in most big cities, people are being treated in hallways and some in parking lot.
Things looks quite serious.
You stay save eh @Kopral Jono
I'ma vaccine hunting tomorrow
BOR (Bed occupancy Rate) is above 90% in most big cities, people are being treated in hallways and some in parking lot.
Things looks quite serious.
You stay save eh @Kopral Jono
I'ma vaccine hunting tomorrow
Agreed – and you can apply this to all the figures they give us – the daily number of deaths are people who died and had a positive test within 28 days of their death. No idea how many are actually caused by Covid.
Any other off-patent drugs extensively banned, demonized and generally dissed for use in treating COVID, apart from Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine?
Bloody Trump! - if he hadn't mentioned Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine the hysteria may never have happened.
I don't think they have much experience in immunisation or epidemiology, so it's far fetched to call them experts in those fields.
Dr. Harald Walach
Harald Walach, PhD, is a professor at Poznan University of the Medical Sciences in Poznan, Pediatric Hospital, Poland and a visiting professor at Witten/Herdecke University’s Department of Psychology. He is a health researcher with approximately 200 peer-reviewed papers to his name and broad expertise in various methods of clinical, experimental, and secondary research.
Dr. Rainer Klement
Rainer J. Klement is a medical physicist with ample experience in data analysis and statistics. He is based at the Radiation Oncology Department of Leopoldina Hospital in Schweinfurt, Germany. He is active in medical modeling and evaluating the effect of ketogenic diets in oncology patients.
Wouter Aukema
Independent Data and Pattern Scientist
I don’t know how you stumble upon all the shit you read, but you always post nonsensical shit. The worst part is that there are small and interesting kernels in some of the links you post, but you extrapolate and misrepresent and cherry pick to an insane degree.
First impressions
- it suggests that 4 people die for every 100,000 people which is way higher than any actual database has suggested. So, firstly the vaccine risk is likely overstated.
- then they suggest those 4 deaths might save around 6 lives in a group of 100,000 people. if you look at the UK you'll see that around 200 people have died per 100,000 (across the whole population) in the past year and we've only kept it that low in the past by lockdowns. We're now mostly dependant on the vaccines to avoid adding thousands more.
Even if you accept their vaccine fatal reactions case rate (which I don't) then I'd suggest you would also need to accept that they were looking at a low case rate environment - not the one that occurs when restrictions are lifted and the population is unvaccinated.
That's just a really odd angle to take. The idea that youtube censorship is the only thing stopping this medicine proving its worth. If it really works it will be studied, proven to be of benefit, then prescribed. The most obvious example is prednisolone. Off patent for decades and cheap as chips. It was used in a large well designed study in the Uk and found to be very effective. It is now standard of care all over the world. If invermectin is as effective as these people seem to think it is then it will become standard of care too. But only when proven to be of benefit. A burden of proof that will require more than youtube opinion pieces.
I don’t think anyone “made it up” - It’s PHE data which I’m guessing count as being qualified right?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/covid-19-vaccine-surveillance-report-published
Only off-patent drugs that haven't been proven to work. The ones that have (e.g. prednisolone) are given to basically every hospitalised covid patient on the planet.
They haven't seemingly banned people discussing the drug, they've banned the promotion of it because it hasn't been studied. There are plenty of videos and articles about the drug. The reason they are doing this is because Hydroxycloroquine wasn't censored early on and people went mad for it thinking it was the cure all only for it to be proven to be ineffective.
Not proven to work!
How do you prove a drug works?, when:
- it's a novel illness caused by a new virus
- the drug, itself, if far more effective when used in a protocol - a combination with other drugs
- the protocol for this combination must be developed through trial and error
- it's effective in slowing onset, so allowing immune system more time to react, so reducing severity of symptoms, leading to fewer deaths.
Man-made climate change is not proven but that does not stop your government spending billions of money 'stopping' it or whatever they think they're doing.
I trust doctors, who use this drug (or not) with real patients. I distrust armchair experts, newspaper editors, social media 'fact checkers', and government spin doctors: dictating to us - doctors and sick people - what we're allowed to do.
Facts are: ivermectin is proven to work, in combination with other medicines to slow disease onset. Because it's off-patent no drug company funded a big trial. So published studies show small samples. Small samples, according to you, say it's unproven. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy to benefit big pharma.
Last edited:
Wow.
@Pogue Mahone
@jojojo
@DFreshKing
from that study - some red flags, some parts had me literally l o l
This is the 1st thing I noticed, it made me laugh because I imagined going to my prof and telling her "look, we got 10 samples, I'm choosing the single best one, just because" and imagining her reaction.
amazing. no reason given to inflate the number by 7 or 45 times! just, we chose the worst data we could find, and moving on now.
1st red flag:
"Received: 2 June 2021 / Revised: 19 June 2021 / Accepted: 21 June 2021"
peer-reviewed and accepted in 3 weeks!!!!! my papers take 6 months, and they aren't life or death issues for anyone.
So, what's this journal with its amazing turn around time? Quoting from here
So the short peer review time starts to make some sense. The 1st comment on the blog is a MDPI editor who says he wasn't given control over who reviews the paper, the journal has their pre-selected reviewers. Something people may not know is that journals charge authors for publication - and there are some notorious open-access journals which charge a lot (over $5k) and accept literally any garbage.
I've read one MDPI paper quite a lot for my work so I know it's not all garbage, but that 3 week turnaround on an obviously questionable study (the section I quoted above is enough for it to fail review), combined with the info in that blog post, suggests MDPI Vaccines might be on the sketchier side.
Because of the sketchiness of the journal, I decided to look at the authors.
First guy is a psychologist, and, wouldn't you know it, has a wikipedia page!
So, a homoepathy guy who was kicked out of his own university, and does parapsychology. Claims to be employed in Poland and at a different German university, could find no record of it.
This is the 1st author --- and the most credible.
2nd author is a qualified astronomer with, as far as I can tell, no degree related to bio or health. Claims to be a radio-oncologist, because of the lackof any medical degree, I'm guessing he repairs X-ray machines. He is not listed as a member of the dept he claims to be from.
3rd author is " Independent Data and Pattern Scientist ". Cool.
Back to the substance of the paper:
This is the page they took their side effect numbers from: https://www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen
This is a google translate of the page:
I could and did fill out a form about a side effect on that page with zero checks. (I stopped before the submit). Indeed, people have been filling out nonsense in the US FDA reporter, which is faithfully picked up by Tucker Carlson.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/06/tucker-carlsons-worst-vaccine-segment-yet/
This is from the same website as the authors cite:
https://www.lareb.nl/pages/update-van-bijwerkingen
It includes a list of severe side effects that could be linked to the vaccine. Rough maths tells me there were about 62 such reactions in the country of Netherlands. 9M people have received the vaccine there. 62/9M = 0.7/100k vaccines, while they use a number of 16/100k, presumably because they rely on the zero-checks self-reporting system. Great standards, real commitment to learning the truth here.
@DFreshKing
But you know, this exercise is pointless, and this isn't the 1st time I've been involved in this nonsense. You will be back with more junk science from whatever blog or forum you frequent. I will be back to occasionally try and disprove it. I know deep down I'm not convincing you, it is obvious nothing can convince you. So this works mostly as an ego boost for me. It makes me feel good to be able to look into a paper that is so obviously flawed I can find massive mistakes in the 1st few lines I check. But nothing of value happened when I spent 30 mins going into the details of this nonsense and typing it out. You aren't changing your mind, and most people here have made up their minds one way or the other before my post.
There is an entire ecosystem, of which you are a part, which I really hate.
These are new, unproven vaccines. Like AstraZeneca, they may have serious or fatal side effects in some cases. You can read my posts here when I was scared about my mother's reaction to it. But because of people like you, finding trustworthy data is like finding a needle in a haystack. Ludicrously inflated numbers, the least credible scientists, a total lack of quality checks - if Pfizer and AstraZeneca wanted to design an opponent to make themselves look good, they couldn't come up with a better crowd than the anti-vax movement.
@jojojo
@DFreshKing
from that study - some red flags, some parts had me literally l o l
This is the 1st thing I noticed, it made me laugh because I imagined going to my prof and telling her "look, we got 10 samples, I'm choosing the single best one, just because" and imagining her reaction.
amazing. no reason given to inflate the number by 7 or 45 times! just, we chose the worst data we could find, and moving on now.
1st red flag:
"Received: 2 June 2021 / Revised: 19 June 2021 / Accepted: 21 June 2021"
peer-reviewed and accepted in 3 weeks!!!!! my papers take 6 months, and they aren't life or death issues for anyone.
So, what's this journal with its amazing turn around time? Quoting from here
So the short peer review time starts to make some sense. The 1st comment on the blog is a MDPI editor who says he wasn't given control over who reviews the paper, the journal has their pre-selected reviewers. Something people may not know is that journals charge authors for publication - and there are some notorious open-access journals which charge a lot (over $5k) and accept literally any garbage.
I've read one MDPI paper quite a lot for my work so I know it's not all garbage, but that 3 week turnaround on an obviously questionable study (the section I quoted above is enough for it to fail review), combined with the info in that blog post, suggests MDPI Vaccines might be on the sketchier side.
Because of the sketchiness of the journal, I decided to look at the authors.
First guy is a psychologist, and, wouldn't you know it, has a wikipedia page!
he is currently the director of the Institute of Transcultural Health Studies at Europa Universität Viadrina, Frankfurt/Oder,[2] and the director of the European Office of the Samueli Institute[3] which has funded his work since its inception in 2000. He is course leader of the first postgraduate training course for doctors in complementary medicine and cultural sciences.[4]. The commission by the state of Brandenburg for the review of Universities ("Hochschulstrukturkommission") which reviewed the University Viadrina where his IntraG, funded by Heel (corporation) is located came to the conclusion that this Institute should not be continued within the university
Walach has advocated the revision of the concept of evidence-based medicine (EBM), stressing the importance of a circular model of evidence in medical research and criticising problematic assumptions inherent in the hierarchical structure of current EBM. Harald Walach is member of the scientific advisory board of a blog called "CAM-Media Watch" which is run by a Journalist also paid mainly by Heel (corporation). The blog sees itself as "spin doctor" for press on the subject of Complementary and Alternative Medicine ("CAM") and has been reported to also smear a scientist critical of homeopathy.
Walach has advocated the revision of the concept of evidence-based medicine (EBM), stressing the importance of a circular model of evidence in medical research and criticising problematic assumptions inherent in the hierarchical structure of current EBM. Harald Walach is member of the scientific advisory board of a blog called "CAM-Media Watch" which is run by a Journalist also paid mainly by Heel (corporation). The blog sees itself as "spin doctor" for press on the subject of Complementary and Alternative Medicine ("CAM") and has been reported to also smear a scientist critical of homeopathy.
So, a homoepathy guy who was kicked out of his own university, and does parapsychology. Claims to be employed in Poland and at a different German university, could find no record of it.
This is the 1st author --- and the most credible.
2nd author is a qualified astronomer with, as far as I can tell, no degree related to bio or health. Claims to be a radio-oncologist, because of the lackof any medical degree, I'm guessing he repairs X-ray machines. He is not listed as a member of the dept he claims to be from.
3rd author is " Independent Data and Pattern Scientist ". Cool.
Back to the substance of the paper:
This is the page they took their side effect numbers from: https://www.lareb.nl/coronameldingen
This is a google translate of the page:
I could and did fill out a form about a side effect on that page with zero checks. (I stopped before the submit). Indeed, people have been filling out nonsense in the US FDA reporter, which is faithfully picked up by Tucker Carlson.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/06/tucker-carlsons-worst-vaccine-segment-yet/
This is from the same website as the authors cite:
https://www.lareb.nl/pages/update-van-bijwerkingen
It includes a list of severe side effects that could be linked to the vaccine. Rough maths tells me there were about 62 such reactions in the country of Netherlands. 9M people have received the vaccine there. 62/9M = 0.7/100k vaccines, while they use a number of 16/100k, presumably because they rely on the zero-checks self-reporting system. Great standards, real commitment to learning the truth here.
@DFreshKing
But you know, this exercise is pointless, and this isn't the 1st time I've been involved in this nonsense. You will be back with more junk science from whatever blog or forum you frequent. I will be back to occasionally try and disprove it. I know deep down I'm not convincing you, it is obvious nothing can convince you. So this works mostly as an ego boost for me. It makes me feel good to be able to look into a paper that is so obviously flawed I can find massive mistakes in the 1st few lines I check. But nothing of value happened when I spent 30 mins going into the details of this nonsense and typing it out. You aren't changing your mind, and most people here have made up their minds one way or the other before my post.
There is an entire ecosystem, of which you are a part, which I really hate.
These are new, unproven vaccines. Like AstraZeneca, they may have serious or fatal side effects in some cases. You can read my posts here when I was scared about my mother's reaction to it. But because of people like you, finding trustworthy data is like finding a needle in a haystack. Ludicrously inflated numbers, the least credible scientists, a total lack of quality checks - if Pfizer and AstraZeneca wanted to design an opponent to make themselves look good, they couldn't come up with a better crowd than the anti-vax movement.
Strange response to a post in which I told you about a specific off-patent drug that has already been proven to work. I think the conclusive evidence was published about 12 months ago. Here’s a link if you’re interested.
EDIT: I said prednisolone but dexamethasone is basically the same thing. Both systemic steroids that have been around forever and cost pennies. Big pharma make sweet feck all from either of them.
Last edited:
Good grief. They still make a lot of folks like you don’t they?
Cheers for that @berbatrick - it's always great to hear from someone with your kind of knowledge especially when they've also got a lot more patience than me.
Heh. Excellent post. The best bit is that - despite this insanely selective use of data (efficacy from Israel combined with safety from the Netherlands because, well, they say so) they still demonstrate a net benefit for vaccines. If you try really really hard to prove an intervention is harmful and it still comes across as beneficial then it’s probably time to accept that your hypothesis has been disproven.
Last edited:
@Mark Pawelek should be the welcome here in the name of the freedom of speech.
He is. And he continues to have the freedom to post stupid stuff. In multiple threads. The only proviso being the freedom of other people to call the stuff he posts stupid. Freedom of speech working exactly as it should. Great, right?
I've no idea what the feck you are on about but whatever. I read peer reviewed studies and other interesting articles on the worldwide pandemic we are all going through. Why on earth youre replying to me as if I wrote the paper is anyone's guess. Care to explain how I misrepresented the paper - no don't I have no interest and won't be reading your response.
Really?
Oh ffs. I see you're in full stream of effluent mode againMark.
Interesting work.
No apparently it's all bullshit and the work of anti vaxxers of which I am assured I am somehow part of. Carry on. :-)
Ha! Touche.