-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
And we won't know what the numbers are for May and beyond because they stopped counting.
CDC Limits Review of Vaccinated but Infected; Draws Concern
Last edited by a moderator:
DeepBreath87
Banned
First, there are only a handful of labs that do gain of function research on bat coronaviruses. Not that study them. That do gain of function research. That’s a fact. Just so you aren’t confused. But let’s say there are 50 such labs. If a brand new virus emerged down the street from any of those 50 labs, out of all the places on earth it could have originated, that would be a hell of a coincidence. Especially if 18 months later, we couldn’t figure out how it jumped from animals to people naturally. That would be something we should figure out. Pretending that the idea this leaked from a lab is “toxic”, when viruses have leaked from labs on numerous occasions in the past, is asinine.
Now, you’d better tell virologists about this not originating in bats, because they seem pretty confident this was a bat virus. They’re just unable to explain how it jumped from bats to humans.
Bat scientists find new coronavirus evidence - BBC News
Experts say coronaviruses related to Sars-CoV-2 may be found in bats across many parts of Asia.
www.bbc.com
This is not “conspiracy theorist”. But keep telling yourself that. And when you have a plausible explanation for how this jumped from animals to people that doesn’t involve any kind of laboratory manipulation, let me know. Make sure it has some actual data. Otherwise, your theory is just as “conspiracy” as anyone else’s.
Last edited:
QSD
Member
All I know is when I posted the podcast, I did a LOT of qualifying. I talked about my own (positive) experience with the vaccines and I also linked to a podcast that criticizes the Weinsteins on the regular for their hot takes. Still, it's just more 'Anti-Vaxx' according to several posters here. How in the hell are people supposed to make sense of all these disparate information sources or raise any concern if they're constantly handwaved and ridiculed? This is a discussion topic, if you can't hande any kind of discussion please do us a favour and show yourself the door.
ManaByte
Gold Member
jonnyp
Member
Congrats! Cannot wait for mine so I can start traveling again.
Last edited:
dorkimoe
Member
It’s a pretty good feeling. First dose kicked my ass but whatever. Wearing a mask in 95 degree heat is not fun. The 21 days between doses was a long wait!
DeepBreath87
Banned
Oh. And I looked up your 50 labs number. Turns out no, actually. Not 50. Just 3. At least according to this guy:
The Lab-Leak Theory: Inside the Fight to Uncover COVID-19’s Origins
Throughout 2020, the notion that the novel coronavirus leaked from a lab was off-limits. Those who dared to push for transparency say toxic politics and hidden agendas kept us in the dark.
So there are three labs doing this kind of gain of function research on bat coronaviruses, and this apparently bat originated coronavirus just happened to pop up down the street from one of them. Forgive me if I find the odds of that to be astronomical.
Last edited:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
There are literally people testifying about spoons sticking to them after getting the vaccination.
There wouldn't be as much push back to borderline valid concerns or questions if completely nutso, absurd bullshit wasn't able to gain significant traction so easily.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
This is not a valid argument. Most reasonable people should be able to sift through the absolutely absurd and the plausible.
QSD
Member
So I guess we'll have to navigate that on a case by case basis, otherwise ignoring all the noise will virtually guarantee that we will also miss warning signals
Edit: also, I went to the gym yesterday for the first time in almost a year and I spent nearly half an hour trying to pry myself loose from the squat rack!
Last edited:
ManaByte
Gold Member
You don't seriously believe that.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
He's saying that because there are people out there talking about Bill Gates 5G microchips and magnetic powers, no one is willing to listen to any kind of skepticism. Basically saying the extremist conspiracy theorists have killed any chance at discussing the vaccines, which is ridiculous.
DeepBreath87
Banned
It’s typical strawmanning. You paint all questions as ridiculous by lumping them in with the most ridiculous people you can find. That way you don’t actually have to engage with honest, non ridiculous concerns because you pretend they’re all crazy like the magnet lady.
Last edited:
vpance
Member
I personally know of some hospital doctors working here in Canada that did little to nothing to help people with covid, walking in for hope of some treatment. They were all repeatedly told to go home and rest like whatever guidelines they are following told them to say. Brett and the other 2 talked about this. "Don't come in until your lips are blue". Some of those patients are dead now, young and old. How many of them could have been saved if any of these proven therapeutics were applied?
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
What are Bret's sources regarding the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin?
Chaplain
Member
Maybe this?
Journal: Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19
edited
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Here's a good site that aggregates and analyzes the existing studies:
Take the analyses with a grain (or bucket) of salt if you're skeptical, but they also link all of the studies at the bottom.
Here is another recent article that makes a compelling case.
Epidemiologic Analyses on Ivermectin in COVID-19
The Latest Results of Ivermectin’s Success in Treating Outbreaks of COVID-19 including charts and data by Juan Chamie.
covid19criticalcare.com
Last edited by a moderator:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
In the public sphere it has completely shut down any reasonable chance of discussion. There is zero trust in critical thinking. I just followed a rabbit hole from that trialsitenews site and see them claiming an 86% miscarriage rate from the vaccine based on this 'letter'
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx...771&ithint=file,docx&authkey=!APbt8mmG0zQO6e8
Where the person deliberately misrepresents data to arrive at an absurd conclusion. And then the site presents that fake data as fact.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
It's 82%, not 86%, but what is deliberately misrepresented and what makes the conclusion absurd to you? If 20 weeks is the common cutoff for defining "spontaneous abortion," then surely the percentage of spontaneous abortions cited in the study should not include pregnant persons who were vaccinated after that cutoff, no? Should it not be cause for alarm that, when that cutoff is applied, the remaining sample size shows that 104/127 = 82% had spontaneous abortions?
You can look up the study yourself. It says, "A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester." The third trimester is 28 weeks into a pregnancy. Surely another study with a bit more even distribution in regards to vaccination timing would be preferable before making any conclusions, no?
Last edited by a moderator:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Like I said critical thinking. 3000+ women are pregnant and get the vaccine. 800 or so complete their pregnancy during the study. 100 are miscarriages and 700 are live births. THE REST (2000+) ARE STILL PREGNANT. Nearly all the live births are women who got vaccinated during the third trimester because the only women who could have reached term were pregnant long before the vaccine was available.
Like I said - critical thinking.
I guess the main problem is a complete lack of integrity with the people who float these turds out there. I see something that looks suspect and I just can't be bothered to unravel the bullshit to get to the actual truth I just assume that it is deliberately misleading and dismiss it out of hand.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, the letter acknowledges this with this comment: "We acknowledge this rate will likely decrease as the pregnancies of women who were vaccinated <20 weeks complete but believe the rate will be higher than 12.5%"
With that said, study was published when it was published. Why did they choose to publish preliminary results and draw conclusions based on those results when the verdict was still out on over two thirds of the sample size? I don't know, but the criticism against its conclusion, which looks at spontaneous abortions rates when the sample size consists almost entirely of people who were vaccinated in the third trimester, seems plenty valid. Do you disagree?
Meanwhile this study is being used as evidence that the vaccine is absolutely safe for pregnant women. It may prove that is ultimately true, but the verdict is still out on 2/3 of the sample size, and the initial results certainly seem worthy of at least a bit of alarm.
Finally, what do you know about the integrity of the three individuals who signed this letter?
- Deanna McLeod, HBSc, Principal at Kaleidoscope Strategic Inc, Toronto, ON
- Ira Bernstein, MD, CCFP, FCFP, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON
- Sanja Jovanovic, MD, MSc, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, Surrey, BC
Last edited by a moderator:
Pol Pot
Banned
Ohio Doctor Claims Covid-19 Vaccine Magnetizes People, Makes Keys Stick On Forehead
Sherri Tenpenny, DO, asserted that after getting the Covid-19 vaccine, people “can put spoons and forks all over them and they can stick.”
www.forbes.com
Believe it
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Ohio Doctor Claims Covid-19 Vaccine Magnetizes People, Makes Keys Stick On Forehead
Sherri Tenpenny, DO, asserted that after getting the Covid-19 vaccine, people “can put spoons and forks all over them and they can stick.”
Believe it
"Ohio Doctor"
She has a doctorate in Osteopathic Medicine... Come on, now.
Why does the mainstream media choose to amplify kooks like this?
Pol Pot
Banned
Because that's people?
Call me a cynic...
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Cool. Why "maybe" though? He didn't post the links in the description?
Nice. I take everything with a grain of salt, but IVM has some good data backing it up. More than HCQ had anyway.Here's a good site that aggregates and analyzes the existing studies:
Take the analyses with a grain (or bucket) of salt if you're skeptical, but they also link all of the studies at the bottom.
Here is another recent article that makes a compelling case.
Epidemiologic Analyses on Ivermectin in COVID-19
The Latest Results of Ivermectin’s Success in Treating Outbreaks of COVID-19 including charts and data by Juan Chamie.
Campbell has had good summaries of it. You can see him getting more convinced that there's something there over time as he gains access to new info.
llien
Member
At lest so far new infections stats look great:
There is pretty convincing evidence it leaked from the lab.
Last edited:
llien
Member
German Hops
GAF's Nicest Lunch Thief
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
DOs practice medicine in the USA.
The vast majority of pregnancy loss occurs in the first trimester, and the data demonstrates that the same is true amongst pregnant women vaccinated with mrna vaccines. There is obviously value to releasing preliminary findings in the midst of a pandemic.
Last edited:
QSD
Member
There's been some great (and reasonably civil) discussion going on here which I'm happy to see. Is it fair to summarize that the Ivermectin claims seem to pan out? While the pregnancy issue discussed above seems alarming but could be preliminary?
On listening to some more of the podcast, my attention was drawn to the mention of Fluvoxamine, which is an SSRI (psychiatric medication). I work in psychiatry and a fair few (don't know the exact percentage) of our clients take it. I wonder if it played a role in protecting against infection. (to everyone's surprise, none of our 55-ish live-in clients have been tested positive so far during the pandemic)
It also makes me wonder whether other SSRI's have been looked at.
On listening to some more of the podcast, my attention was drawn to the mention of Fluvoxamine, which is an SSRI (psychiatric medication). I work in psychiatry and a fair few (don't know the exact percentage) of our clients take it. I wonder if it played a role in protecting against infection. (to everyone's surprise, none of our 55-ish live-in clients have been tested positive so far during the pandemic)
It also makes me wonder whether other SSRI's have been looked at.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
You do not think there is anything wrong with how they presented the data?
Why does "Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk" have a denominator that includes pregnant women who are well beyond 20 weeks into their pregnancy, which means they could not have a spontaneous abortion by definition? In fact, 84.6% of the participants were at least 28 weeks (third trimester) into their pregnancies. When you remove them, you get the 104/127 = 82% incidence, which surely should cause some alarm. Yes, the sample size is almost certainly too small to draw any decisive conclusions, but why are the data presented this way, and why were these preliminary results published at this arbitrary time? I've seen this specific study cited multiple times as evidence of the safety of the vaccines for pregnant women.
ManaByte
Gold Member
Chaplain
Member
In the video, Steven mentioned a study that was about to be published but I could not find it. I only found a study from a few months ago. That is why I said what I did. ^_~
New Twitter posts:
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
100% of completed pregnancies less than 20 weeks are abortion either spontaneous or planned. So that 82% is just the percentage of spontaneous vs planned abortions which says absolutely zero about the safety of the vaccine. The author's of the letter are too smart not to know this, which tells me all I need to know about their integrity.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
You do not think there is anything wrong with how they presented the data?
Why does "Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk" have a denominator that includes pregnant women who are well beyond 20 weeks into their pregnancy, which means they could not have a spontaneous abortion by definition? In fact, 84.6% of the participants were at least 28 weeks (third trimester) into their pregnancies. When you remove them, you get the 104/127 = 82% incidence, which surely should cause some alarm. Yes, the sample size is almost certainly too small to draw any decisive conclusions, but why are the data presented this way, and why were these preliminary results published at this arbitrary time? I've seen this specific study cited multiple times as evidence of the safety of the vaccines for pregnant women.
The study looked at 3900 women, not 800. They could have also presented it as 100/3900 or 100/1200. It’s preliminary data. It isn’t going to be perfect. No, the 84% number is not conceding. Of course any completed pregnancy in the first trimester is going to be a loss.You do not think there is anything wrong with how they presented the data?
Why does "Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk" have a denominator that includes pregnant women who are well beyond 20 weeks into their pregnancy, which means they could not have a spontaneous abortion by definition? In fact, 84.6% of the participants were at least 28 weeks (third trimester) into their pregnancies. When you remove them, you get the 104/127 = 82% incidence, which surely should cause some alarm. Yes, the sample size is almost certainly too small to draw any decisive conclusions, but why are the data presented this way, and why were these preliminary results published at this arbitrary time? I've seen this specific study cited multiple times as evidence of the safety of the vaccines for pregnant women.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
This preliminary study looked at ~800 completed pregnancies. The verdict is still out on approximately 3100 pregnancies. I couldn't find a reason in their study for why they chose to look at only 10 weeks of data before publishing results, but here is a link to the full text:
Of course that's a good point and why jumping to conclusions is never a good idea. We can only hope there will be further follow up with this study, especially once all pregnancies initially chosen for monitoring have completed.
It's 82%. By that logic, no number of spontaneous abortions could ever be concerning.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
No, thats not what I'm saying. This is essentially an inverse version of the length time bias. If you looked at women in their first trimester who drank water/inhaled oxygen/picked their nose over a period of two months, close to 100% of them with completed pregnancies at the end of those two months would have had spontaneous abortions or losses. Babies don't do well outside the body that early regardless of what they were exposed to. I don't see anyone panicking over drinking water though. The 82% is not concerning because it doesn't tell us anything. It's manipulating numbers to fool people who don't understand statistics and biology into thinking there is a signal. There isn't. Amongst women who had their vaccine in the first trimester, there is no evidence of an increase risk spontaneous abortion let alone to suggest that anywhere close to 82% will miscarry.
They likely chose that time interval because they only had access to that data at the time. Again, we are in the midst of a pandemic and they clearly state this is preliminary data.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Seems to me that in order to determine that, you would have to at least look at a full trimester's worth of data from participants that administered the vaccine within the first trimester, no? With that said, of course I agree that suggesting there might be an 82% rate of miscarriage is not right. The letter to the journal isn't suggesting that, either.
The vaccines were already approved for pregnant women and are being administered to them, so I don't really see the need to rush the publishing of such preliminary results that could at best conclude that getting the vaccine within 10 weeks of projected birth dates almost certainly does not cause still births.
Either way, I just hope we get a follow up or two to this study with more conclusive results for all subjects monitored.
Dr.Guru of Peru
played the long game
You can look at the number of women in their first trimester or early second that received the vaccine and look at the incidence of miscarriage within that population, and it doesn't appear to be high. The study hasn't concluded anything, it's just reporting preliminary results that thus far no evidence of harm has been seen. This type of data allows people to make more informed choices.
Last edited:
Shai-Tan
Banned
it's worth mentioning, both Bret and Eric Weinstein are cranks. Bret has been pushing completely unfounded claims about vaccine safety. They trade on irrelevant credentials and spin conspiracy theories to audiences who have been fooled by surface level truthiness. And if you listen to e.g. Decoding the Gurus their claims to expertise fall apart, even in their chosen fields.
Science | AAAS
pel1300
Member
Care to address the actual points brought up and not the messenger?it's worth mentioning, both Bret and Eric Weinstein are cranks. Bret has been pushing completely unfounded claims about vaccine safety. They trade on irrelevant credentials and spin conspiracy theories to audiences who have been fooled by surface level truthiness. And if you listen to e.g. Decoding the Gurus their claims to expertise fall apart, even in their chosen fields.
Science | AAAS
blogs.sciencemag.org
Shai-Tan
Banned
The story he's presenting is false. And it trades on credibility of "dissenting md's and phd's" as if him or the people in his orbit have relevant expertise (they don't). If there were some merit to his claims (or a few fringe md he trots out) maybe it would be worth listening but the correct way to do that would be to first learn why the consensus view of actual experts is what it is to have some basis to critically evaluate the narrative he's spinning. There's an asymmetry here in that academics generally have better things to do than to debunk online bs.
it would be off topic to discuss social media policy regarding disinformation
edit: and the messenger is relevant because (i) most people don't have the time or understanding to look into important details; (ii) they're not merely offering dissenting views - it's part of a conspiracy narrative, what Eric calls the DISC (Distributed Idea Suppression Complex) that also, according to them undermine their respective revolutionary scientific theories (Eric's Geometric Unity, Bret's claims about Telomeres, which also amount to nothing when the details have been looked at)
edit: I couldn't remember the pod that addressed ivermectin stuff directly, but here's one that address their anti-vaxx sentiment
SIO291: Bret Weinstein Spreads Dangerous Anti-vax Nonsense
Joe Rogan said healthy, young people shouldn’t get the COVID vaccine. This is dangerous and anti-science and incorrect. Though Rogan apologized, Heather Heying and Bret Weinstein took to thei…
seriouspod.com
SIO292: More Weinstein and Heying Anti-vax Nonsense
It’s part 2 of our debunk of the disgraceful anti-vaccine garbage being spewed from the Dark Horse Podcast. It’s a YouTube show featuring two biologists who ABSOLUTELY should know bette…
seriouspod.com
the host there has the same degree as Bret (ie. not an expert on vaccines or virology) but it matters less for her because (i) she's not claiming the experts are wrong; (ii) Weinstein and Heyer make mistakes that only require basic research to expose
Last edited:
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
Is this about the bodily derived modified spike protein that is generated from the mRNA vaccine? There is little evidence that it accumulates in the bloodstream in significant numbers or that it is even harmful at all.
Last edited:
DeepBreath87
Banned
Who knows? Apparently it’s not even allowed to be discussed because YouTube gets to decide what is true now. Which is a larger problem than whether or not the vaccines have unintended consequences. YouTube clearly shouldn’t have the kind of power it does to influence the discourse around public health topics, as we have seen the past year.
The idea that people who are presenting a controversial or speculative idea should be banned outright is insane. Two months ago they were banning people from discussing whether this leaked from a lab. YouTube should not have the authority to determine what qualifies as “medical misinformation”. It’s not even really defensible.
Rentahamster
Rodent Whores
A lot of people know. This topic has been studied. The information is out there.
Science | AAAS
Byram Bridle’s claim that COVID-19 vaccines are toxic fails to account for key differences between the spike protein produced during infection and vaccination, misrepresents studies
The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 allows the virus to bind to and infect cells, making it an ideal target for vaccine development. Recent studies suggested that the spike protein produced during infection alone might cause cardiovascular damage in COVID-19 patients. While the three COVID-19...
healthfeedback.org
No, this topic has been discussed quite a lot on Youtube. While I have issues with YouTube's trigger happy censor fest policy in general, the claim that "it's not even allowed to be discussed" is not accurate.
Here are a bunch of videos discussing this topic.
Last edited: