Display MoreMay be the horoscope of Fauci has been done with relation to sunspot activity and did drive him to give the OK for the final release experiments.
This will be the first lab generated virus that follows sun spot evolution.
It is more likely that the decision has been made based on stock options in Moderna...
But tomorrow we will learn that also stock exchanges follow sun cycles since the roman empire...
Don't be obtuse young man
Don't be obtuse young man
You are not much younger...
I fully agree that virus mutation certainly will depend on sun cycles/sun activity. But not the start of the pandemic.
The pandemic started in Wuhan because the sulfur air content was 1200 micro grams = 24x above alarm value 60x above safety limit. So if you inhale sulfuric & nitric (from cars) acid together this will severely damage your mucosa. Later with a virus this is a no brainer.
I made once the mistake to go running in winter - acid fog. --> >1 week damaged lungs. In Zürich!! In a "afresh air" spot!
Rational COVID-19 Pandemic Response or A Brave New Europe?
Recently, a Romanian Deputy of the European Parliament accompanied by a handful of other dissenting Members of European Parliament (MEP) delivered a message to colleagues and anyone else bothering to listen to them about the COVID-19 pandemic, transparency, democracy, and the slide to a more totalitarian tomorrow. The dissenting MEPs sought to express concern about the new integrated green passes of Europe. 42-year old MEP Christian Terhes, educated in America, conservative, and member of the clergy pointed out to reporters that the COVID-19 pandemic triggered an unprecedented, continent-wide power grab led by a program of forced vaccination based on the economic and social dependencies on the digital green pass. In what might be considered firebrand speech in proper, upper-tier European circles, Terhes displayed to reporters an example of a vaccine company contract with the EU—revealing page after page of blacked out, redacted space. “This is transparency?” the MEP shouted to the cameras as he reminded all its European citizens the entire pivot to what feels like, at least to some social conservatives and many others, a “brave new world.” But do Terhes and peers acknowledge the severity of the situation as well? Lacking masks (a standard protocol there), the Romanian and other MEPs on the one hand conveyed some important points, but on the other hand, espousing extreme views won’t find much of an audience among governing peers. Transcending COVID-19 means also acknowledging its ongoing menace while supporting science/evidence-based, incremental steps toward the absolute necessary pivot out of this health, as well as political and economic crisis.
Europe & the Next Surge
As protests, some turning violent, sprung up across European cities against new COVID restrictions, the pandemic surges across the continent leading to record high SARS-CoV-2 infection rates in many nations. A combination of intertwining forces and elements leads the crisis onward, and it appears to be not dissipating anytime soon.
Consequently, social, political, and ultimately economic tensions mount as the socio-economic and political implications of uniform pandemic response planning and action produce inevitable economic winners and losers.
Cases surge at unprecedented levels in some European nations. The following EU members now experience record numbers of daily infections:
Germany
Netherlands
Denmark
Belgium
Austria
Czech Republic
Hungary
Slovakia
Croatia
Greece
Romania (but cases rapidly declining)
The surge has impacted economically challenged Romania hard, where 574 people died from the coronavirus over a 24-hour period—a record for the nation of 19.3 million people. Romania has the second-lowest vaccination rate in the entire EU at 37%.
Vaccination rates fluctuate but generally tend higher in both the western and southern parts of the continent. For example, Italy and Spain are both highly vaccinated (Spain fully at 80%), while also faring much better than many other nations.
TrialSite has reviewed the European numbers, and clearly, in many cases, higher vaccination rates are associated with reduced hospitalization and death rates due to SARS-CoV-2. However, while it may initially slow it down, vaccination by no means stops transmission. While small, nations such as Gibraltar, essentially 100% vaccinated, now experience unprecedented surges, https://trialsitenews.com/100-…-the-gibraltar-situation/ the limitations of the current early batch of COVID vaccine products also becomes apparent. At the end of the day, they don’t stop viral transmission. TrialSite has reported on this observation across the world, from Singapore and Iceland to the UK. Israel is a place to watch as much of the population went through an intensive third booster program. The number of cases has plummeted due more than likely to the vaccinations, natural immunity, and possibly seasonal factors. If cases take off again necessitating the fourth booster, then a far more intense debate will manifest worldwide.
MEPs Line Up
Perhaps, Mr. Terhes isn’t happy about the fact that even MEPS now must line up and get their jabs if they want to function properly in their job descriptions. Why? Because if an MEP (and staff) don’t obtain digital vaccine passes they cannot enter any official European government premises. As of the first of November, all leaders and their staff involved in EU governance must prove they are fully vaccinated or, recently recovered. That includes producing evidence of a negative PCR test within 48 hours.
European decision-makers do appear to accept natural immunity more than their American peers, where it’s barely a discussion. TrialSite suggests that this becomes a far more rational approach than the current one in the U.S. that doesn’t recognize the concept at all. The mandate is presently on hold due to the ruling of a federal circuit court while the justices look into the constitutionality of the POTUS edict.
Right Wing Thing?
Mr. Terhes was joined at the press conference with a far-right German politician named Christine Anderson. Part of what appears to be a German nationalist political group called AfD, Anderson declared she would opt for jail over the vaccination in protest over whether the vaccines are experimental or not. While representing just a fringe contingent, the politicians’ reactions perhaps fail to truly recognize that the world is going through its worst pandemic in the modern era.
Nationalism, or for that matter a patchwork of nationalist-minded rebellious political movements, at least as measured by past historical lessons, doesn’t lead to a more open, free, and prosperous world. Regardless of belief set, ideology, or paradigmatic stance, ever more globally integrated societies seem inevitable.
Note, that the unfolding reality of today also could open up new opportunities to advance greater inclusion, access, and representation for all people. In other words, history isn’t set—but rather is made by people. However, the simultaneous downplaying of the present health-centered crisis married with fervorous, extremist-tending agendas probably won’t contribute to a better, more democratic, and prosperous outcome post the pandemic, if history is any steady guide.
Who is in Control?
Back to Mr. Terhes, the Romanian politician issued a warning about a movement to a colder, more top-down, digitally repressive, and even more bureaucratic brave new Europe. Representing the conservative and rural-based constituents in what is one of the poorer and most vaccine-hesitant countries in Europe, he was actually educated in Orange County, California studying journalism and becoming a clergy with the Romanian Greek Catholic Church.
The politician reminded the other European MEPs that they are elected “for the people,” and that they should have the people’s best interests in mind. The politician emphasized:
“That is the reason why they elected us here in the European Parliament. All these leaders of the European Parliament, like to praise themselves, every time they have a press conference, they go on to say that this is the most democratic institution of the European Union. The question for them is: Is this really so?”
The conservative MEP asked, why are people’s fundamental rights being taken away? He followed up with his primary point that there should be absolutely no medical treatment imposed upon people that they do not freely accept, under informed consent. But of course, this already happens. In most of Europe’s most advanced democracies and economies, children must be vaccinated to go to school for example.
Terhes emphasized his outrage with the lack of transparency between the pharmaceutical companies making the vaccines (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, AstraZeneca, etc.) and the European Commission. At the onset of 2021, some MEPs demanded access to the contracts between the EU and the vaccine companies. The MEP finally was able to access one of those contracts to showcase for the press conference: holding up the artifact, flipping blacked-out page after page of redacted information. This is transparency shouted by the MEP—who is in control here
Heil Zorud! - it sounds like a German "chief Nazi" did indirectly speak to us!
I selected the Moderna jab for the known reasons, Mr. Allwissend. And you are the one who seems to like, perfectly know and use all day long the old language from the luckily gone darkest German era....useless to discuss with such a selfish person. Openminded Wyttenbach is the strongest oxymoron I can imagine... 
Mr. Data Science has been looking in detail at the UK data that W so much loves to misinterpret. He has done much more background research than me:
Worth reading in its entirety. And when the antivaxxers here make false claims about that data it will be fun - we can just highlight the relevant sections that contradict this.
Nice that, like me, he finds the UK data compellingly rich when compared to a lot of the stuff out there. And nice that he has done what i gave up on doing and found somone who has properly sorted out the wrong denominator due to MIMS dataset. Go look at the graphs.
The summary conclusions (we await Parts 2 & 3):
In all age groups, we clearly see the vaccinated groups having lower risk of COVID-19 death, and this is especially evidence during the winter Alpha surge and summer Delta surges. The vaccinated individuals appear to be MUCH less likely to die in a COVID-19 surge, with fully vaccinated individuals in week 35 having 5x, 10x, 10x, and 2x lower all cause death rates in the than respective cohorts than unvaccinated individuals. This is consistent with the vaccines protecting strongly against death even after some waning of circulating antibodies as has been noted at 5-6m post-vaccination.
This is particularly impressive given that we know 1/2 of the UK population has received AstraZeneca vaccines, that supposedly are less efficacious than the mRNA vaccines. It is possible they are similarly effective in preventing death even if they are slightly less effective in protecting vs. infection. It would be great to see updated data from October and November, but given the time lag to confirm deaths, late September is the most recent they could release in early November. I look forward to seeing updated data from the UK, and using the script I share above, it is easy to immediately produce these plots again when the updated data are released. Additionally, the scripts can be used to produce similar plots from data from other countries should data on all cause deaths plot out by vaccination status and age over time are released, as I hope they are. It can't be emphasized enough how much better these data are than the naive scatterplots of national infection or death rates vs vaccination rate at an arbitrary point as published in this (weak) paper by Harvard researchers that has become a favorite of vaccine skeptics, or discussions of the raw infection or death rates over time, not split out by vaccine status or age, for hand-picked countries that seem to fit a narrative of "why are infections going up after vaccination if vaccines work?" As scientists know, accurate causal interpretation of observational data is tricky, especially in the setting of the pandemic with vaccine rates and event risks wildly varying across age groups and over time and place as surges of different variants hit. As a result, careful analysis is more crucial than ever. Hopefully, the increasingly availability of thorough data like the UK data analyzed here make it possible for us to clearly understand important factors like how vaccination is impacting the population. This blog post focused on COVID-19 death rates, but this depends on death attribution practices in terms of COVID-19 being listed on the death certificate, which also may be partially dependent on SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing practices and thresholds that may have changed over time. As a result, it is important to look at the all-cause deaths, that fortunately the ONS has shared in Table 4 of this same data base. Part 2 and Part 3 of this blog series compares unvaccinated and fully (2-dose vaccinated) and unvaccinated and single-dose vaccinated, respectively, that will be independent of any SARS-CoV-2 testing practices or COVID-19 death attribution.
I mentioned the Covid-19 Data Science blog post: "What do UK data tell us about effect of vaccination on deaths?" The author found some errors in this. He withdrew it for a while. Today, he replaced it with:
Part 1: Comparing COVID-19 deaths
Misinformation by Fact-Checkers: In-Depth Look at Another Hit Piece in Mainstream Media
Ivermectin is a scandal based on “shoddy science”, according to an article published in The Atlantic on October 23, 2021. TrialSite takes a closer, more in-depth look at the self-labeled “forensic peer review” research team, and fact-checks the fact-checkers to determine the validity of their claims.
The dissemination of critical information to the public by influencers on major media platforms in the COVID-19 era has been confounding, with no way to decipher half-truths from empirically supported facts. TrialSite has followed up on concerning circulations on media outlets that are not corroborated by experts of the subject matter of SARS-CoV-2.
A group of individuals who maintain to have specialized expertise as forensic peer reviewers for clinical trial data has been circulating information about the drug ivermectin. They have been countering data from clinical trials and preprints, amplifying weaknesses both perceived and real, to dismiss any significant implications it may hold.
Though exercising free speech is a right, scientific arguments need comprehensive empirical support before being released publicly and in good faith to consumers. The Atlantic published a piece dismissing ivermectin data as false science that cannot hold water under scrutiny.
Objective perspectives?
Apart from the Atlantic, three other influential media houses – Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and BBC – have published articles citing the group of fact-checkers as a source. A TrialSite piece by Sonia Elijah noted a common denominator in The Guardian and the BBC; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Both have received significant BMGF funds. Another similar article, the Los Angeles Times (LA Times) piece shredding ivermectin, was covered by TrialSite. The LA Times owner is working on developing a COVID-19 vaccine through his pharmaceutical company. Moreover, he has invested with Bill Gates in a clean energy venture. No need for conspiracy theories as history is a series of coincidences particularly among the billionaires investor club.
The BMGF has also donated to Pfizer in the past, as well as to BioNTech where it has also invested. BMGF contributes significantly to GAVI, the vaccine alliance that has clearly pitched itself against ivermectin. Additionally, the University of Wollongong (Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz’s alma mater) got a big grant from the BMGF.
These intertwined relationships may or may not categorically indicate a hidden motive, but there are fertile elements for conflict of interest, which would make objective reporting tricky.
Background: Who are the fact-checkers?
James Heathers is the author of The Atlantic article and has been the chief scientific officer at Cipher Skin since July 2020 in Denver, CO. He studied in Australia and holds a doctorate in physiological-signal methodology.
Heathers has experience in physiology, bio signal methodology, signal analysis, and wearable device design according to his LinkedIn page. He was previously a postdoctoral researcher at Northeastern University between Sep 2016 and Jul 2020 in a computational Behavioral Science Laboratory and was also an Endeavour research fellow at Poznan University of Medical Sciences for seven months where he analyzed cardiorespiratory interactions and association to HRV. He was a Research Scientist and PhD candidateat the University of Sydney from 2011 to 2015.
Dr. Kyle Sheldrick is an Australian medical doctor not currently practicing medicine and appears to be front and center in this group probing the planet for negative ivermectin data points. He previously served as a neurosurgery registrar and private assistant work at hospitals. He runs a blog but expresses his views mostly on Twitter.
In a blog post, Sheldrick revealed that he was funded by the Australian Commonwealth Government for his PhD position, and his research study was funded by the AO Foundation (a non-profit Swiss foundation).
He is the managing director and co-founder of Merunoca Pty Ltd which was awarded funding through the Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund. It deals with software intellectual property “for multi-echo MRI signal post-processing and computational efficiency.”
Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz is an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong and positions himself as an expert on COVID-19. He has written for The Guardian as far back as 2018, and he runs a blog on Medium. Some of his blog entries are full of praise for vaccines and asserted their safety back in December 2020.
Jack Lawrence, a medical student in London, first raised concerns about errors in the ivermectin paper by Elgazzar et al., as covered by TrialSite in July. He cracked the password to the data file. Though referred to as a medical student in The Guardian exposé on ivermectin by Melissa Davey, he is associated with Grftr News and the Twitter project @TimPoolClips
Nick Brown studied psychology in the UK and later at the University of Groningen. Before that, he worked in IT in Strasbourg. He admits that, while math is not his forte, he has collaborated with others to debunk erroneous calculations in research including his very first venture of getting a partial retraction in the work of distinguished professor and psychologist in positive psychologist Dr. Barbara Fredrickson. Brown runs a blog where he calls himself a self-appointed data police cadet. He is a data analyst with Linnaeus University in Sweden where he reviews scientific papers for errors.
Brown has worked with James Heathers as far back as 2015 in evaluating research studies. They would publicly expose and shame researchers when they failed to get responses or retractions for problematic studies.
Melissa Davey is a medical editor for The Guardian. On the day she released the July 15, 2021 story on Elgazzar et al., Nick Brown wrote about it in his blog, announcing, “Melissa Davey is covering the story in The Guardian today.” Davey used the individual group members (except for Heathers) as her main sources.
An Attack On Peer Review
James Heather’s Atlantic piece makes a case against the peer-reviewing process. He avers that the ivermectin studies went through suboptimal criteria with questionable standards that allowed the studies to be accepted for publishing. He pinpoints several papers they focused their efforts on.
The Atlantic article asserts that their correspondence with the publishers of Elgazza et al. led to retraction. Heathers and his colleagues appear to consider it a victory score that should be applied to all other studies that do not meet their criteria.
However, there are protocols for peer review of clinical trials, which define who can review a study and how it should be done. Because reviewing clinical studies requires specialized knowledge, peers who are experts in the field of study with a robust portfolio of their own research qualify to examine the papers. This calls for substantiation by scholars well-acquainted with the existing knowledge base – those who are astutely situated to examine gaps in research, the primary endpoints, secondary endpoints, or the surrogate endpoints of efficacy and safety.
The Issue Of Data Flaws
Some of the studies examined by the group include preprints; these papers have not yet been peer-reviewed, but have been made available to the public to increase the body of data available. The pre-prints can’t be used as a basis to adequately assess the robustness of the peer review process. And similarly, flaws in the study design or data of a preprint cannot predictably implicate spuriousness of implication.
Heathers contended that data incongruences and errors were flaws in the studies that point to fraud. One example is a paper from Lebanon which contained repeated data for multiple participants (and has since been retracted).
From there, Heathers’ statement begins to make assumptions, claiming “our low estimate is that 17 percent of the major ivermectin trials are unreliable.”
Cognitive Biases at Play
Cognitive biases entail a pattern of subjective thinking that may have errors. Biases can cloud one’s critical and analytical skills and the conclusion or inferences made. It poses the risk of spreading inaccurate information, even if it is delivered with sincere intentions.
Biases and fallacies are common in any information dissemination, but especially so when objectivity is compromised. In analyzing the Atlantic article, we have identified several patterns of biases that appear to lead the reader to conclusions that are not necessarily consistent with the facts.
Confirmation bias:
This causes an individual to obtain information that exclusively supports their already existing or set ideas, with validation as the endpoint rather than accuracy.Heathers seeks out examples which align with his argument, drawing inferences based on a few cases that have errors, including a pre-print that has been retracted. The author extrapolates from these examples to conclude that all study trials on ivermectin are useless.
Tellingly, despite openly criticizing one of their target ivermectin articles for a “failure of randomization” in their data, Heathers and colleagues choose not to provide full details of how they selected 30 studies for intense scrutiny out of the “70 to 100 studies” related to ivermectin and COVID-19, except to say they “don’t pick papers to examine at random” and prioritized ones that were “influential”. It comes as little surprise that the studies they are “certain are unreliable happen to be the same ones that show ivermectin as most effective.”
The Dunning-Kruger effect:
This is a bias where an individual overestimates or underestimates their proficiency on a specific subject. It can influence someone who is convinced they possess know-how in an area they actually have limited knowledge or expertise in. The individual may tend to oversimplify the subject matter without appreciating nuances or complexities that they may not be aware of.
The group of “forensic peer reviewers” may be competent in their respective areas of expertise, but that does not necessarily mean said competence can be translated into other areas. The group dismisses ivermectin studies without acknowledging the limitation they have by not being true experts in the area of COVID-19. To overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect, they could perhaps seek views of expert panels and scholars.
In-group bias:
In-group bias is a phenomenon in which a group of voices support and reinforce beliefs within the group, regardless of new information presented.
The anti-ivermectin group links to each other’s articles or blog posts in their arguments. For instance, Sheldrick’s Twitter account links to the Meyerowitz-Katz’ article on Medium, which links back to Sheldrick’s blog that addresses what his Tweet was asserting. Heathers’ Atlantic article is also linked to the piece by Meyerowitz-Katz.
This creates an echo chamber, which serves not only to reinforce their own confidence in their statements, but also to make their circle of comments seem validated in the public eye.
The Emergence of Logical Fallacies
The cognitive biases listed above are not the only evidence of errors in The Atlantic piece. Logical fallacies, which involve erroneous reasoning, clouding assertions and arguments with errors, are also notable. Whether accidental or intentional, they lead the reader to conclusions that are not consistent with the information at hand.
Faulty Generalizations
Conclusions or inductions drawn without sufficient evidence (inductive strength) can lead to a fallacy of faulty generalization. Generalizing from faults the researchers claim to have found in five papers to conclude that all ivermectin studies are worthless is an example of a faulty generalization. That a supposed top-tier publication such as The Atlantic would wholly embrace such questionable content possibly evidences that media’s ties to others’ fortunes.
Hasty Generalization
Hasty generalization refers to conjectures drawn and placed on a whole cluster out of inferences drawn from a few or a sample: X is true for A, and it is also true for B; therefore, X must also be true for C, D, and so on.
The issue here is that one truth cannot then be applied to everything in its vicinity.
Heathers, for instance, makes this assertion: “Yet it has not yet sunk in to the public consciousness that our system for building biomedical knowledge largely ignores any evidence of widespread misconduct. In other words, the literature on ivermectin may be quite bad—and in being so, it may also be quite unremarkable.”
The assumption made without proof is that there is widespread misconduct. On this premise he asserts that literature of ivermectin “may”. The word “may” here is suggestive that the statement made prior is a possible determinant. Again, there is no proof of evidence.
This can be seen in Meyerowitz-Katz’s writing:
“After a lengthy investigative project, myself and a group of colleagues have discovered a deep well of fraudulent research that underlies the entire literature behind ivermectin for Covid-19. Not just one or two problematic papers, but a staggering volume of studies that appear to either be so fatally flawed that they cannot be trusted or research that literally never happened at all.”
This “staggering volume of studies” is based on issues they found in just five papers—TrialSite reminds all that 66 ivermectin studies https://ivmmeta.com/ are now complete and the great majority of them show some positive data points. But based on the five reviews—and of course countless fallacious arguments– the network somehow compelled to go after this drug used by hundreds of millions per year.
Meyerowitz-Katz supports the assertion that “every study is fraud until proven otherwise” by linking to a blogpost of British Medical Journal. However, this approach is not applied to the vaccine studies that he celebrated for their speedy trials.
There is a stark difference between how he addresses vaccine research and the way he discusses ivermectin:
“This does not mean that no medical advance is reliable — if nothing else, most Covid-19 vaccine studies appear to hold up extremely well and are very unlikely to be fraudulent …. In the case of ivermectin, it appears that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people have been treated with a drug based on studies that may never have happened at all.”
Could financial benefits in one form or another drive Mr. Meyerowitz-Katz? Did he not reac the recent BMJ whistleblower piece https://trialsitenews.com/the-…zers-covid-vaccine-trial/ about the Pfizer vaccine trials?
Intentional fallacies
Several examples of intentional fallacies are identifiable in the article:
Abusive language against someone’s character (argumentum ad hominem): The group calls the ivermectin studies “fraud” and “scam”, insinuating that the researchers involved in those studies were acting fraudulently. But to what end? There is no commercial interest in ivermectin. This has been intensified as many of the studies are conducted by research/physicians during pandemic conditions in what amount to poor countries—whether Egypt, Bangladesh, Dominican Republic, Nigeria or elsewhere. A sense of elitism if not racist undertones underly this group’s disdain for hard working doctors trying to save lives in real time.
Creating a false dilemma (an either-or fallacy) which ends up oversimplified a situation with false dichotomy Just because there were issues in study design and methodology, does not necessarily make ivermectin ineffective or indicate that the studies are a scam.
Selectively using facts (card stacking): The group only analyzed five out of 30 studies that they sampled non-randomly. The five studies all happen to have unforgivable errors according to the group.
Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy): The group drew comparisons to scandals in research by invoking readers’ memories with the surgisphere story.
Association fallacy: They also used an argument’s connections to other concepts to support or refute, commonly referred to as “guilt by association”.
False science & argumentum ad hominem
When logical fallacies and biases are present due to a lack of objectivity, they allow conclusions resulting in distortion of high-stake issues and breach of trust. This calls into question the authority and intellectual integrity of that person.
“Not all science is worth following.” This is the statement made by the writer after noting the numerous studies on ivermectin. While this may be true, it can only bear weight if the science is examined under a rigorous framework of objective evidence-based data which is absent from the analysis presented by these “weary volunteers”.
The public would be better served if time, energy, and resources were directed to hold pharmaceuticals (with commercial interests) and regulatory bodies accountable. It would also increase credibility if the group examined the studies in the context of other corroborating studies including real-life evidence, in-vitro and in-silico analysis before dismissing all ivermectin trials.
I mentioned the Covid-19 Data Science blog post: "What do UK data tell us about effect of vaccination on deaths?" The author found some errors in this. He withdrew it for a while. Today, he replaced it with:
Part 1: Comparing COVID-19 deaths
This tells me as not having a booster to be careful if cases go up and don't trust the vaccines. The death rates for 10-59 trend do not look good and way worse then
the common belief. Having vaccine passport for just two jabs can be a disaster if these numbers are correct. Better then to fight this with social distancing and hygiene.
In light of this the very high protection you get in elderly cohorts is suspect and some confounder is probably at work. I tell everybody I know, who hasn't got covid, to be
very careful if cases go up. currently we see a small and slow increase in hospitalizations (but not icu and deaths yet).
The manipulation of information seems much more then just one area or study.
missing data of the sun and effects then simulated" and don't mach the live videos ect..
point of view-
what a mess.
...and Part 2, a detailed analysis of that excellent UK data
This is one of the few large-scale data sets I've seen in which all cause death is reported over time, split out by vaccination status and age, the key factors that MUST be accounted for in order to begin to make any valid assessment of the real-world effect on vaccinations.
It is possible to fit rigorous statistical models to disentangle all of the confounding factors of vaccination rate, age, time, and vaccination status to tease out valid real-world effectiveness measurements, and some excellent papers have done so.
However, to keep things simple and accessible, I will not do that here. Instead, I will simply plot the all-cause death rates over time for each age group and vaccination status. If done carefully, these plots can parse out the confounding effects and provide a clear visual picture of the effect of vaccination on all-cause death in the UK in 2021. This data set runs through late September, allowing enough time to accurately assemble the death data for the November 1st release. Keep in mind, there still may be some confounding factors remaining in the data that could impact risk of death, including pre-existing medical conditions, socioeconomic status, vocation, and other demographic factors. However, by accounting for age and time confounding, these plots should give us a reasonable idea of that is going on.
To make the plots maximally informative, the data are plotted as follows:
To streamline the interpretation, I will separately analyze the fully vaccinated (2 dose) and partially vaccinated (1 dose) cohorts relative to the unvaccinated. This blog post will deal specifically with fully vaccinated, while part 3 of this 3-part blog post will deal with partially vaccinated.
For me, as always, details trump vague insinuations and propaganda. The arguments here (and in Part 1) are all laid out in detail - if you disagree you can say where that is.
Many antivaxxers look the wide age-range 10-59 UK data, with vaccinated having higher excess mortality than unvaccinated, and see this as evidence.
Of course they are being unimaginative (and unscientific), and not looking at the details, or remembering Simpson's paradox.
The great merit is that with effort we can see what is the expected effect from that. Mr. Data Science has done that, with all the working laid out in graphs.
In this blog post, I have plotted and interpreted all-cause death rates over time split out by vaccination status for the various age groups. The carefully chosen plotting techniques enable parsing out some of the confounding effects of time, age, vaccination rate, infection rate, and variant and get a fair assessment of how the UK vaccination program is affecting all cause deaths. In the 60-69yr, 70-79yr, and 80yr+ age groups, we clearly see the vaccinated groups having lower risk of all-cause death, and this is especially evident during the winter Alpha surge and summer Delta surges. with all-cause death rates MUCH lower in vaccinated than unvaccinated during the Alpha surge, and between 1.7x and 2.3x lower during the Delta surge, during a time when the vaccine effectiveness has started to wane.
Conversely, starting April, the 10-59yr age group showed about 1.5-2x higher all cause death rates in vaccinated than unvaccinated groups. However, I demonstrated that we would expect the vaccinated cohort to have 2.4x higher all cause death rate than the unvaccinated cohort based on their disparate age distributions, with the vaccinated subset much older and having a background annual mortality rate of 192.3 per 100k and the much younger unvaccinated subset much younger and with background annual mortality rate of 79.7 per 100k, in comparison with the overall 149.5 per 100k mortality rate of the full 10-59yr cohort.
This suggests this effect is an artifact caused by Simpson's paradox, and not an indication of vaccine-caused deaths.
This does not tell the whole story, since in this blog post we have focused only on the fully (2 dose) vaccinated, and left out the partially (1 dose vaccinated).
Although this group is relatively small (1.2% for 80yr+, 0.8% for 70-79yr, 1.4% for 60-69yr, and 16.0% of 10-59yr during week 30), it is important to investigation this group, especially to look for any signal of potential harm caused by vaccination. The ONS data base splits this group out by <21 days since 1st dose, and >21 days after 1st dose.
In the 3rd part of this 3-part blog series, I will present and try to offer interpretations of these single-dose data.
Misinformation by Fact-Checkers: In-Depth Look at Another Hit Piece in Mainstream Media
For me the strongest evidence comes from the large "at home" RCTs of ivermectin. They have not yet reported, but we know for sure that if there was a strong positive signal they would announce early interim results, so that is ruled out.
We also know there is no strong negative signal (as there was with HCQ) or they would again stop early.
So we wait to see if ivermectin has any effect on mortality or other stats. I still hope it might have a significant effect on hospitalisation (perhaps through symptomatic relief) because the earlier tests, aggregated, showed some evidence of that.
It will be fascinating to see, but not that interesting if the newer Pfizer antiviral proves to be safe - it is spectacularly good.
Worth pointing out that it has been 10 years in the making, through a process of deliberate incremental change (originally it was looked at for SARS). This does not mean that antivirals are easy to find! It DOES mean they are a lot easier to get tested when there is a pressing pandemic need for them.
Again - it is worth distinguishing between propaganda that looks at characters and possible motives, and guesses, and hard facts from big, well-controlled and conducted, trials.
Display MoreMisinformation by Fact-Checkers: In-Depth Look at Another Hit Piece in Mainstream Media
https://trialsitenews.com/misi…iece-in-mainstream-media/
Ivermectin is a scandal based on “shoddy science”, according to an article published in The Atlantic on October 23, 2021. TrialSite takes a closer, more in-depth look at the self-labeled “forensic peer review” research team, and fact-checks the fact-checkers to determine the validity of their claims.
The dissemination of critical information to the public by influencers on major media platforms in the COVID-19 era has been confounding, with no way to decipher half-truths from empirically supported facts. TrialSite has followed up on concerning circulations on media outlets that are not corroborated by experts of the subject matter of SARS-CoV-2.
A group of individuals who maintain to have specialized expertise as forensic peer reviewers for clinical trial data has been circulating information about the drug ivermectin. They have been countering data from clinical trials and preprints, amplifying weaknesses both perceived and real, to dismiss any significant implications it may hold.
Though exercising free speech is a right, scientific arguments need comprehensive empirical support before being released publicly and in good faith to consumers. The Atlantic published a piece dismissing ivermectin data as false science that cannot hold water under scrutiny.
Objective perspectives?
Apart from the Atlantic, three other influential media houses – Los Angeles Times, The Guardian, and BBC – have published articles citing the group of fact-checkers as a source. A TrialSite piece by Sonia Elijah noted a common denominator in The Guardian and the BBC; the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). Both have received significant BMGF funds. Another similar article, the Los Angeles Times (LA Times) piece shredding ivermectin, was covered by TrialSite. The LA Times owner is working on developing a COVID-19 vaccine through his pharmaceutical company. Moreover, he has invested with Bill Gates in a clean energy venture. No need for conspiracy theories as history is a series of coincidences particularly among the billionaires investor club.
The BMGF has also donated to Pfizer in the past, as well as to BioNTech where it has also invested. BMGF contributes significantly to GAVI, the vaccine alliance that has clearly pitched itself against ivermectin. Additionally, the University of Wollongong (Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz’s alma mater) got a big grant from the BMGF.
These intertwined relationships may or may not categorically indicate a hidden motive, but there are fertile elements for conflict of interest, which would make objective reporting tricky.
Background: Who are the fact-checkers?
James Heathers is the author of The Atlantic article and has been the chief scientific officer at Cipher Skin since July 2020 in Denver, CO. He studied in Australia and holds a doctorate in physiological-signal methodology.
Heathers has experience in physiology, bio signal methodology, signal analysis, and wearable device design according to his LinkedIn page. He was previously a postdoctoral researcher at Northeastern University between Sep 2016 and Jul 2020 in a computational Behavioral Science Laboratory and was also an Endeavour research fellow at Poznan University of Medical Sciences for seven months where he analyzed cardiorespiratory interactions and association to HRV. He was a Research Scientist and PhD candidateat the University of Sydney from 2011 to 2015.
Dr. Kyle Sheldrick is an Australian medical doctor not currently practicing medicine and appears to be front and center in this group probing the planet for negative ivermectin data points. He previously served as a neurosurgery registrar and private assistant work at hospitals. He runs a blog but expresses his views mostly on Twitter.
In a blog post, Sheldrick revealed that he was funded by the Australian Commonwealth Government for his PhD position, and his research study was funded by the AO Foundation (a non-profit Swiss foundation).
He is the managing director and co-founder of Merunoca Pty Ltd which was awarded funding through the Australian Government Medical Research Future Fund. It deals with software intellectual property “for multi-echo MRI signal post-processing and computational efficiency.”
Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz is an Australian chronic disease epidemiologist from the University of Wollongong and positions himself as an expert on COVID-19. He has written for The Guardian as far back as 2018, and he runs a blog on Medium. Some of his blog entries are full of praise for vaccines and asserted their safety back in December 2020.
Jack Lawrence, a medical student in London, first raised concerns about errors in the ivermectin paper by Elgazzar et al., as covered by TrialSite in July. He cracked the password to the data file. Though referred to as a medical student in The Guardian exposé on ivermectin by Melissa Davey, he is associated with Grftr News and the Twitter project @TimPoolClips
Nick Brown studied psychology in the UK and later at the University of Groningen. Before that, he worked in IT in Strasbourg. He admits that, while math is not his forte, he has collaborated with others to debunk erroneous calculations in research including his very first venture of getting a partial retraction in the work of distinguished professor and psychologist in positive psychologist Dr. Barbara Fredrickson. Brown runs a blog where he calls himself a self-appointed data police cadet. He is a data analyst with Linnaeus University in Sweden where he reviews scientific papers for errors.
Brown has worked with James Heathers as far back as 2015 in evaluating research studies. They would publicly expose and shame researchers when they failed to get responses or retractions for problematic studies.
Melissa Davey is a medical editor for The Guardian. On the day she released the July 15, 2021 story on Elgazzar et al., Nick Brown wrote about it in his blog, announcing, “Melissa Davey is covering the story in The Guardian today.” Davey used the individual group members (except for Heathers) as her main sources.
An Attack On Peer Review
James Heather’s Atlantic piece makes a case against the peer-reviewing process. He avers that the ivermectin studies went through suboptimal criteria with questionable standards that allowed the studies to be accepted for publishing. He pinpoints several papers they focused their efforts on.
The Atlantic article asserts that their correspondence with the publishers of Elgazza et al. led to retraction. Heathers and his colleagues appear to consider it a victory score that should be applied to all other studies that do not meet their criteria.
However, there are protocols for peer review of clinical trials, which define who can review a study and how it should be done. Because reviewing clinical studies requires specialized knowledge, peers who are experts in the field of study with a robust portfolio of their own research qualify to examine the papers. This calls for substantiation by scholars well-acquainted with the existing knowledge base – those who are astutely situated to examine gaps in research, the primary endpoints, secondary endpoints, or the surrogate endpoints of efficacy and safety.
The Issue Of Data Flaws
Some of the studies examined by the group include preprints; these papers have not yet been peer-reviewed, but have been made available to the public to increase the body of data available. The pre-prints can’t be used as a basis to adequately assess the robustness of the peer review process. And similarly, flaws in the study design or data of a preprint cannot predictably implicate spuriousness of implication.
Heathers contended that data incongruences and errors were flaws in the studies that point to fraud. One example is a paper from Lebanon which contained repeated data for multiple participants (and has since been retracted).
From there, Heathers’ statement begins to make assumptions, claiming “our low estimate is that 17 percent of the major ivermectin trials are unreliable.”
Cognitive Biases at Play
Cognitive biases entail a pattern of subjective thinking that may have errors. Biases can cloud one’s critical and analytical skills and the conclusion or inferences made. It poses the risk of spreading inaccurate information, even if it is delivered with sincere intentions.
Biases and fallacies are common in any information dissemination, but especially so when objectivity is compromised. In analyzing the Atlantic article, we have identified several patterns of biases that appear to lead the reader to conclusions that are not necessarily consistent with the facts.
Confirmation bias:
This causes an individual to obtain information that exclusively supports their already existing or set ideas, with validation as the endpoint rather than accuracy.Heathers seeks out examples which align with his argument, drawing inferences based on a few cases that have errors, including a pre-print that has been retracted. The author extrapolates from these examples to conclude that all study trials on ivermectin are useless.
Tellingly, despite openly criticizing one of their target ivermectin articles for a “failure of randomization” in their data, Heathers and colleagues choose not to provide full details of how they selected 30 studies for intense scrutiny out of the “70 to 100 studies” related to ivermectin and COVID-19, except to say they “don’t pick papers to examine at random” and prioritized ones that were “influential”. It comes as little surprise that the studies they are “certain are unreliable happen to be the same ones that show ivermectin as most effective.”
The Dunning-Kruger effect:
This is a bias where an individual overestimates or underestimates their proficiency on a specific subject. It can influence someone who is convinced they possess know-how in an area they actually have limited knowledge or expertise in. The individual may tend to oversimplify the subject matter without appreciating nuances or complexities that they may not be aware of.
The group of “forensic peer reviewers” may be competent in their respective areas of expertise, but that does not necessarily mean said competence can be translated into other areas. The group dismisses ivermectin studies without acknowledging the limitation they have by not being true experts in the area of COVID-19. To overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect, they could perhaps seek views of expert panels and scholars.
In-group bias:
In-group bias is a phenomenon in which a group of voices support and reinforce beliefs within the group, regardless of new information presented.
The anti-ivermectin group links to each other’s articles or blog posts in their arguments. For instance, Sheldrick’s Twitter account links to the Meyerowitz-Katz’ article on Medium, which links back to Sheldrick’s blog that addresses what his Tweet was asserting. Heathers’ Atlantic article is also linked to the piece by Meyerowitz-Katz.
This creates an echo chamber, which serves not only to reinforce their own confidence in their statements, but also to make their circle of comments seem validated in the public eye.
The Emergence of Logical Fallacies
The cognitive biases listed above are not the only evidence of errors in The Atlantic piece. Logical fallacies, which involve erroneous reasoning, clouding assertions and arguments with errors, are also notable. Whether accidental or intentional, they lead the reader to conclusions that are not consistent with the information at hand.
Faulty Generalizations
Conclusions or inductions drawn without sufficient evidence (inductive strength) can lead to a fallacy of faulty generalization. Generalizing from faults the researchers claim to have found in five papers to conclude that all ivermectin studies are worthless is an example of a faulty generalization. That a supposed top-tier publication such as The Atlantic would wholly embrace such questionable content possibly evidences that media’s ties to others’ fortunes.
Hasty Generalization
Hasty generalization refers to conjectures drawn and placed on a whole cluster out of inferences drawn from a few or a sample: X is true for A, and it is also true for B; therefore, X must also be true for C, D, and so on.
The issue here is that one truth cannot then be applied to everything in its vicinity.
Heathers, for instance, makes this assertion: “Yet it has not yet sunk in to the public consciousness that our system for building biomedical knowledge largely ignores any evidence of widespread misconduct. In other words, the literature on ivermectin may be quite bad—and in being so, it may also be quite unremarkable.”
The assumption made without proof is that there is widespread misconduct. On this premise he asserts that literature of ivermectin “may”. The word “may” here is suggestive that the statement made prior is a possible determinant. Again, there is no proof of evidence.
This can be seen in Meyerowitz-Katz’s writing:
“After a lengthy investigative project, myself and a group of colleagues have discovered a deep well of fraudulent research that underlies the entire literature behind ivermectin for Covid-19. Not just one or two problematic papers, but a staggering volume of studies that appear to either be so fatally flawed that they cannot be trusted or research that literally never happened at all.”
This “staggering volume of studies” is based on issues they found in just five papers—TrialSite reminds all that 66 ivermectin studies https://ivmmeta.com/ are now complete and the great majority of them show some positive data points. But based on the five reviews—and of course countless fallacious arguments– the network somehow compelled to go after this drug used by hundreds of millions per year.
Meyerowitz-Katz supports the assertion that “every study is fraud until proven otherwise” by linking to a blogpost of British Medical Journal. However, this approach is not applied to the vaccine studies that he celebrated for their speedy trials.
There is a stark difference between how he addresses vaccine research and the way he discusses ivermectin:
“This does not mean that no medical advance is reliable — if nothing else, most Covid-19 vaccine studies appear to hold up extremely well and are very unlikely to be fraudulent …. In the case of ivermectin, it appears that hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of people have been treated with a drug based on studies that may never have happened at all.”
Could financial benefits in one form or another drive Mr. Meyerowitz-Katz? Did he not reac the recent BMJ whistleblower piece https://trialsitenews.com/the-…zers-covid-vaccine-trial/ about the Pfizer vaccine trials?
Intentional fallacies
Several examples of intentional fallacies are identifiable in the article:
Abusive language against someone’s character (argumentum ad hominem): The group calls the ivermectin studies “fraud” and “scam”, insinuating that the researchers involved in those studies were acting fraudulently. But to what end? There is no commercial interest in ivermectin. This has been intensified as many of the studies are conducted by research/physicians during pandemic conditions in what amount to poor countries—whether Egypt, Bangladesh, Dominican Republic, Nigeria or elsewhere. A sense of elitism if not racist undertones underly this group’s disdain for hard working doctors trying to save lives in real time.
Creating a false dilemma (an either-or fallacy) which ends up oversimplified a situation with false dichotomy Just because there were issues in study design and methodology, does not necessarily make ivermectin ineffective or indicate that the studies are a scam.
Selectively using facts (card stacking): The group only analyzed five out of 30 studies that they sampled non-randomly. The five studies all happen to have unforgivable errors according to the group.
Making false or misleading comparisons (false equivalence and false analogy): The group drew comparisons to scandals in research by invoking readers’ memories with the surgisphere story.
Association fallacy: They also used an argument’s connections to other concepts to support or refute, commonly referred to as “guilt by association”.
False science & argumentum ad hominem
When logical fallacies and biases are present due to a lack of objectivity, they allow conclusions resulting in distortion of high-stake issues and breach of trust. This calls into question the authority and intellectual integrity of that person.
“Not all science is worth following.” This is the statement made by the writer after noting the numerous studies on ivermectin. While this may be true, it can only bear weight if the science is examined under a rigorous framework of objective evidence-based data which is absent from the analysis presented by these “weary volunteers”.
The public would be better served if time, energy, and resources were directed to hold pharmaceuticals (with commercial interests) and regulatory bodies accountable. It would also increase credibility if the group examined the studies in the context of other corroborating studies including real-life evidence, in-vitro and in-silico analysis before dismissing all ivermectin trials.
Display MoreMany antivaxxers look the wide age-range 10-59 UK data, with vaccinated having higher excess mortality than unvaccinated, and see this as evidence.
Of course they are being unimaginative (and unscientific), and not looking at the details, or remembering Simpson's paradox.
The great merit is that with effort we can see what is the expected effect from that. Mr. Data Science has done that, with all the working laid out in graphs.
https://www.covid-datascience.…8a-4519-a673-c934ef86e228
In this blog post, I have plotted and interpreted all-cause death rates over time split out by vaccination status for the various age groups. The carefully chosen plotting techniques enable parsing out some of the confounding effects of time, age, vaccination rate, infection rate, and variant and get a fair assessment of how the UK vaccination program is affecting all cause deaths. In the 60-69yr, 70-79yr, and 80yr+ age groups, we clearly see the vaccinated groups having lower risk of all-cause death, and this is especially evident during the winter Alpha surge and summer Delta surges. with all-cause death rates MUCH lower in vaccinated than unvaccinated during the Alpha surge, and between 1.7x and 2.3x lower during the Delta surge, during a time when the vaccine effectiveness has started to wane.
Conversely, starting April, the 10-59yr age group showed about 1.5-2x higher all cause death rates in vaccinated than unvaccinated groups. However, I demonstrated that we would expect the vaccinated cohort to have 2.4x higher all cause death rate than the unvaccinated cohort based on their disparate age distributions, with the vaccinated subset much older and having a background annual mortality rate of 192.3 per 100k and the much younger unvaccinated subset much younger and with background annual mortality rate of 79.7 per 100k, in comparison with the overall 149.5 per 100k mortality rate of the full 10-59yr cohort.
This suggests this effect is an artifact caused by Simpson's paradox, and not an indication of vaccine-caused deaths.
This does not tell the whole story, since in this blog post we have focused only on the fully (2 dose) vaccinated, and left out the partially (1 dose vaccinated).
Although this group is relatively small (1.2% for 80yr+, 0.8% for 70-79yr, 1.4% for 60-69yr, and 16.0% of 10-59yr during week 30), it is important to investigation this group, especially to look for any signal of potential harm caused by vaccination. The ONS data base splits this group out by <21 days since 1st dose, and >21 days after 1st dose.
In the 3rd part of this 3-part blog series, I will present and try to offer interpretations of these single-dose data.
Yep this data looks more consistant ~1.8x improved death rate. If this had been 10x then I would support covid passports. There is no other option than be careful to avoid overcrowding the health system and loose the trust from the public.
Display MoreFor me the strongest evidence comes from the large "at home" RCTs of ivermectin. They have not yet reported, but we know for sure that if there was a strong positive signal they would announce early interim results, so that is ruled out.
We also know there is no strong negative signal (as there was with HCQ) or they would again stop early.
So we wait to see if ivermectin has any effect on mortality or other stats. I still hope it might have a significant effect on hospitalisation (perhaps through symptomatic relief) because the earlier tests, aggregated, showed some evidence of that.
It will be fascinating to see, but not that interesting if the newer Pfizer antiviral proves to be safe - it is spectacularly good.
Worth pointing out that it has been 10 years in the making, through a process of deliberate incremental change (originally it was looked at for SARS). This does not mean that antivirals are easy to find! It DOES mean they are a lot easier to get tested when there is a pressing pandemic need for them.
Again - it is worth distinguishing between propaganda that looks at characters and possible motives, and guesses, and hard facts from big, well-controlled and conducted, trials.
Did you miss that brilliant article I linked to that showed that indeed ivermectin most likely have an effect in india, bangladesh and other worm infested areas where up to 50% of the population could have a worm infection. Ivermectin kills worms.
Yep this data looks more consistant ~1.8x improved death rate. If this had been 10x then I would support covid passports. There is no other option than be careful to avoid overcrowding the health system and loose the trust from the public.
Yes, but that is 1,8X over excess deaths. We don't normally dismiss doubling of normal chances of dying a small thing.
Did you miss that brilliant article I linked to that showed that indeed ivermectin most likely have an effect in india, bangladesh and other worm infested areas where up to 50% of the population could have a worm infection. Ivermectin kills worms.
I did see it but even without the worms there are too many confounders for me to conclude anything from this data. So I'm not against having a dose of ivermectin being good for you (killing worms) and therefore reducing COVID death rates in wormy countries. But I can't say it is proven!
Ironically, if COVID killed people at the same rate, but quickly, outright, so that there was no pressure on hospitals or need for doctors to choose who to save and who to leave at home to die, I think we would have a very different political reaction to COVID deaths.
Yes, but that is 1,8X over excess deaths. We don't normally dismiss doubling of normal chances of dying a small thing.
Sure it is a good case for improving the odds, but not clear to give the impression that everything is fine just live your life as nothing has hapend if you have taken
2 jabs. This was up to week 30, the effect is less now for 2 jabs. I project that the covid pass thing will be a disaster.
I did see it but even without the worms there are too many confounders for me to conclude anything from this data. So I'm not against having a dose of ivermectin being good for you (killing worms) and therefore reducing COVID death rates in wormy countries. But I can't say it is proven!
true, but I think the idea is medically very plausable. If you put a 1 for the study that follows the worm theory and 0 else you can do the sign test and conclude loosly that P < 2^{-7} = 1/128 ~ 0.01, (this has flaws but still) So that together with the good story to me indicates quite high possibility
This tells me as not having a booster to be careful if cases go up and don't trust the vaccines.
I do not understand this statement. I think it means:
1. You do not have a booster.
2. If cases go up, you should be careful.
3. You should not trust the vaccines.
#3 makes no sense. You should trust the vaccines. You should get a booster!!
