The Playground

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    This is fake news based on paper tiger studies. You cannot use the PCR+ database for such studies as it is a fact that > 50% are false positive. You have to look e.g. at serious cases with a documented history. But here you run into the age issue.

    We have hard data from Israel hospitals, that show > 13x better protection (than from gene therapy) from an infection up to 40 x in the full population (includes more younger).

    99.9% of all US CoV-19 publications are fabricated data. Pfizer spends billions. See Andrew Hill or Yale school of medicine....

    So you admit your claimed “real data” from UK is fake news and paper tiger stuff? 😅

    You twist your sources and cited data as you want to fit your anti vaxx and anti big pharma crusade… lol.

    Quote from zorud

    anti big pharma crusade

    Epistemic corruption

    Epistemic Corruption, the Pharmaceutical Industry, and the Body of Medical Science
    When a knowledge system importantly loses integrity, ceasing to provide the kinds of trusted knowledge expected of it, we can label this epistemic corruption.…
    www.frontiersin.org


    : “As the world changes, the forms of corruption also gradually become more cunning, more difficult to point out.” In its corruption of medical science, the pharmaceutical industry has borne this out.

    Quote from Dr Richard*

    fake NEWS

    is the fake news epistemic , deontic or systemic?


    of course BigPharma is thought by some to have


    fake motives


    "Like most systems that can be corrupted, medical science has never been pure or perfect.

    But the pharmaceutical industry can trade on the presumed innocence of medical research’s overriding goal: creating knowledge to benefit patient health.

    That is, some standard narratives of medical research attribute to it purity of heart, and a mere shortage of means that can be rectified by industry support."

    Quote from Ahlfors

    First from left sits the "puppet" ... "authenticity is thus improved".


    Maximum prudence in judice is recommended. Sometimes autopilot in posting is dangerous.

    AVANZA CON I TAXI E' IL NUOVO LUMBARD IN SALSA BOLOGNESE - la Repubblica.it
    BOLOGNA - Al comune di Bologna, ultima roccaforte rossa dove sventola ancora la bandiera del governo delle sinistre, l' unico leghista eletto è già stato…
    ricerca.repubblica.it

    COVID-19 Collateral Damage Just Grows


    COVID-19 Collateral Damage Just Grows
    COVID-19 has changed the world in more ways than just mask-wearing and social distancing. The reports of overflowing hospitals and burned-out medical
    trialsitenews.com


    COVID-19 has changed the world in more ways than just mask-wearing and social distancing. The reports of overflowing hospitals and burned-out medical staff have become routine. But what of the “collateral damage” happening in hospitals worldwide.


    A prime example happened in Wales. A report in Wales Online tells the story of Noah Herniman. Noah suffers from neurofibromatosis, meaning tumors are growing on his nerve tissues. He had been scheduled for an annual scan, which was canceled because of pressures the Aneurin Bevin Health Board was dealing with due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Months later, Noah was diagnosed with an inoperable tumor on the stem of his brain. If it weren’t for COVID-19 delays, Noah would have been diagnosed with the tumor in 2020. Because of the location of the tumor, Noah can no longer eat properly and must be fed through a feeding tube.


    As Noah’s mother explains, “in 2020, everything was on hold and the scan wasn’t deemed urgent, so he didn’t have it.” Now, unfortunately, nothing can be done for Noah. As a spokesperson for Aneurin Bevin Health explained: “All routine scans and procedures were postponed across the whole of the NHS at the beginning of the pandemic and sadly this has resulted in some delays with diagnosis. We are sorry to hear that Noah’s condition has deteriorated and our thoughts are with his family.”


    This is now a worldwide situation. An October article in NPR reports hospitals are so crowded with covid, one in five Americans are delaying health care. The article goes on to say “the safety net” is gone because hospitals are filled with unvaccinated COVID cases. This is putting a strain on many health care systems. Additionally, many health care workers are overwhelmed and quitting, putting more strain on systems. TrialSite notes hospitals increasingly include vaccinated breakthrough infections yet the mainstream media’s marching orders from government, advertisers, or some other sources continue to hammer on an extremely divisive and dangerous message that cancels considerable science along the way.


    Meanwhile, The Guardian reports that the World Health Organization (WHO) posits that the new omicron variant could overwhelm European health services as cases are on a record rise on the continent. The report says even though omicron is a milder version of COVID-19, the variant is so transmissible it could lead to more hospital admissions.


    Both the Netherlands and Switzerland are reporting that omicron is now the dominant strain of SARS-CoV-2 in their countries. The pandemic has exposed the flaws in healthcare systems, which could lead to a lack of trust in organized medicine and, in the United States, has already led to even less trust in government. Not to mention the economic consequences. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has now cut isolation time for omicron cases in half from 10 days to 5. Airline cancellations and business slowdowns have been attributed to the longer period of isolation. Business associations applauded the CDC move. The recent POTUS vaccine mandates, an unprecedented top-down move using various legal mechanisms such as OSHA only make matters worse, including economic conditions worse as rampant health care employee shortages only worsen.


    As early as July of this year, TrialSite News reported on the effects and potential strain of the COVID-19 pandemic on hospitals. TrialSite continued to hammer home the dangers of not focusing on early-onset treatments—without early care, many more people would and, in fact, have died. The article maintained “bolstering preventative measures and supporting surging hospitals could save many lives.” Is this now the price of COVID-19


    https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/12/27/cdc-cuts-isolation-time-asymptomic-covid-infections/

    Quote from fabrice DAVID

    2022 countdown demonstration against coronavirus in Paris.

    A bit strange message…wasn’t this the common New Year’s Eve party on Champs Élysée, this time but under Corona conditions? No alcohol, no public fireworks, masks,…



    France celebrates the turn of the year under corona conditions


    Under strict corona conditions, France welcomed the year 2022. The traditional magnificent New Year's Eve fireworks on the Paris Arc de Triomphe were cancelled, toasting Champs-Élysées with sparkling wine on the magnificent boulevard was not allowed. In Paris and in large parts of the country, there was an alcohol ban on the streets around the turn of the year. Nevertheless, a large crowd gathered on the Champs-Élysées. People were sometimes crowded. Only occasionally rockets rose over Paris; the sale of fireworks was prohibited almost everywhere in France before New Year's Eve.


    Many people gathered at the Champs Elysees in Paris on Silverster's Eve. (Image: Keystone)


    In the capital and many departments, bars and restaurants had to be closed on the 1st. January at 2 o'clock. In many cities in France, including Paris, people also have to wear masks outside all the time. In Strasbourg and the surrounding area, the authorities had imposed a curfew on unaccompanied young people under the age of 16 due to serious riots in the past.

    How Dr. Fauci Deliberately Distorts the Truth: “The data needs to be further analyzed”


    How Dr. Fauci Deliberately Distorts the Truth: “The data needs to be further analyzed”
    Note that views expressed in this opinion article are the writer’s personal views and not necessarily those of TrialSite. Dr. Ron Brown – Opinion
    trialsitenews.com


    December 31, 2021


    The public has been a constant target of Dr. Fauci’s distortion of the truth. Whether misleading U.S. Congress with claims that the coronavirus is ten times more deadly than influenza, Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation – PubMed (nih.gov), denying that his organization, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was involved in funding gain of function research, or promoting the ridiculously misleading 95% efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials – PubMed (nih.gov), Dr. Fauci consistently manages to pull the wool over the public’s eyes. Fauci’s distortions often do not appear to be unintentional. Evidence in this editorial will demonstrate one of Dr. Fauci’s methods which he uses to deliberately distort the truth when reporting clinical research findings.


    Fauci and AZT Relative Risk Reduction

    “Fauci’s First Fraud”


    The video excerpts from “Fauci’s First Fraud” show a 2020 interview with Dr. Fauci, seated next to Dr. Deborah Birx of the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Fauci is reminiscing about HIV research during the clinical trials of AZT (Retrovir) in the 1980s.


    Video – 23:57

    Fauci suggests that the researchers at the time had all the clinical trial data necessary to achieve their objective and approve AZT.


    Fauci: “Whenever you have clear-cut evidence that a drug works, you have an ethical obligation to immediately let the people who are in the placebo group know so that they can have access…and all of the other trials that are taking place now have a new standard of care. So we would have normally waited several days until the data gets further—dot the i’s and cross the t’s. But the data are not going to change. Some of the numbers may change a little, but the conclusion will not change.”


    Video – 25:14

    Fauci: “The mortality rate trended towards being better in the sense of less deaths in the Remdesivir group,…” [Fauci probably meant the Retrovir group,]


    “…8%, versus 11% in the placebo group.”


    [These data probably refer to the adverse effects of anorexia, which were 8% in the Retrovir group and 11% in the placebo group. The Retrovir absolute risk reduction was 3%, calculated by subtracting the 8% event rate in the Retrovir group from the 11% event rate in the placebo group].


    “It has not yet reached statistical significance,…”


    [Fauci appears to imply that the absolute risk reduction of 3% is too small to be a clinically significant outcome].


    “…but the data needs to be further analyzed.”


    [Fauci implies that the relative risk reduction needs to be calculated by dividing the absolute risk reduction of 3% by the placebo event rate of 11%. The relative risk reduction of the Retrovir group is just over 27%. However, this is the relative risk reduction of anorexia, not mortality, because Fauci appeared to misuse anorexia data in his example].


    Dr. Fauci might respond to this editorial by claiming he did nothing wrong by further analyzing the data, because this is the usual method used, but that doesn’t make the distortion of the clinical results any less deceptive.


    Only absolute numbers should be used in clinical trials that measure a causative and controlled experimental effect. Relative numbers should only be used in observational studies that measure relative and uncontrolled associations, not absolute causes. Converting the absolute risk reduction to the relative risk reduction usually makes the risk reduction in the trial appear much larger than it actually is



    Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation

    Public Health Lessons Learned From Biases in Coronavirus Mortality Overestimation - PubMed
    In testimony before US Congress on March 11, 2020, members of the House Oversight and Reform Committee were informed that estimated mortality for the novel…
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials

    Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials - PubMed
    Relative risk reduction and absolute risk reduction measures in the evaluation of clinical trial data are poorly understood by health professionals and the…
    pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


    Fauci’s First Fraud”: Documentary Exposes Decades-old Lies Behind the Man Who Cancelled Thanksgiving

    "Fauci’s First Fraud": Documentary Exposes Decades-old Lies Behind the Man Who Cancelled Thanksgiving - Global Research
    “You may have to bite the bullet and sacrifice that social gathering [this Thanksgiving],” Dr. Anthony Fauci told CBS Newsworld on October 16.
    www.globalresearch.ca

    So: having pretty well lost the arguments on science, the antivaxxer line (which is what makes it so powerful a meme) is that pharma is corrupt, government is corrupt, and experts cannot be trusted (if they have university or pharma jobs) because they will also be corrupt.


    I'd also say that the US hospital system is inevitably, and systematically, corrupt, in the sense that it runs on financial incentives that go against the interests of good nationwide healthcare, which is why in spite of being very expensive the US scores low in the population health league table.


    Ranking the Top Healthcare Systems by Country
    A list of he top health care systems by country. The UK and Switzerland have the best healthcare systems in the world. Find more...
    www.internationalinsurance.com


    Pharma's tarnished reputation helps fuel the anti-vaccine movement
    The continuous wave of scandals that has enveloped the pharmaceutical industry has contributed to the prominent anti-pharma themes voiced by the anti-vaccine…
    www.statnews.com


    Certainly pharma - like big oil, or the financial industry - is motivated by making money and that can and does sometimes lead to corrupt practices. Governments, as we know, can have corrupt practices. Individual university academics are both fallible and (occasionally) corrupt.


    Corruption in the US


    Why do people oppose vaccinations? There are lots of reasons. The most frequently given one, the raison d’etre of the misinformation campaigns, is that childhood vaccines are dangerous, though I’m still waiting to see a single piece of creditable evidence to support this.


    I'm guessing that this is not what motivates the antivaxxer memes on this thread.


    One other theme featured prominently in their messaging is that pharmaceutical companies can’t be trusted.


    That’s a sad truth: The awful reputation of the pharmaceutical industry is now inhibiting the use of some of its most lifesaving products. Tuesday’s spectacle of seven pharma executives being grilled by the Senate Finance Committee on high drug prices is just the latest example of the industry’s black eye.


    Why are so many people suspicious of pharma in general and vaccines in particular? It’s pretty easy to figure it out. The industry has been engaging in bad behavior for several decades, and these self-inflicted wounds have turned much of the public against it.

    It wasn’t always this way. In the early 1950s, parents across America feared that the frequent polio epidemics sweeping the nation might leave their sons or daughters crippled, or even worse, confined to an iron lung. The first polio vaccine, developed by Dr. Jonas Salk, eased those fears. Salk was rightly considered a national hero, and was especially lauded for refusing to patent the vaccine.

    Pharma companies became among the most admired (as well as the most profitable) businesses in America. In the last half of the 20th century, they brought to market a cornucopia of medicines that combatted previously untreatable diseases. Drugs were developed for heart disease, rheumatoid arthritis, high blood pressure, anxiety, pain, bacterial infections, asthma, contraceptives, cancer. The 1990s brought the first drugs based on recombinant DNA technology, adding a large number of new treatments to fight disease. Pharma companies also developed vaccines.


    Then came the scandals. They haven’t involved just one company. Over the past two decades, we’ve seen scores of pharma and biotech companies hauled into court for a variety of serious, and in some cases deadly, infractions. What kinds of high crimes and misdemeanors have poisoned the well of public opinion? Here’s a sample from just the last few years:

    More widely reported are the stories about drugs pulled off the market due to safety concerns (multiple companies), or ones that reveal how pharma payments influence doctors’ prescribing habits for brand-name drugs (multiple companies).

    Finally, let’s look at criminal and civil penalties (both state and federal) racked up by the industry over the last couple of decades. According to a Public Citizen analysis, the industry settled 373 cases between 1991 and 2012, paying $35.7 billion for numerous violations. These cases included illegal off-label marketing, overcharging Medicare and Medicaid, kickbacks, concealing data, and poor manufacturing practices. The largest penalties weren’t levied on obscure companies nobody’s ever heard of. They fell squarely on the shoulders of Big Pharma: GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Merck, Abbott, Eli Lilly, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and others. These various offenses have, not surprisingly, led to pharma being portrayed as the villain in numerous movies and TV shows.

    The pharma industry has established a solid history of shooting itself in both feet via the number and size of these scandals. I’ve suggested over the years that the industry adopt a set of well-defined ethics policies. The response? Rather than try to repair the damage, the industry has simply decided that its monopoly pricing power provides the ultimate insulation from criticism.


    Corruption in other countries (e.g. UK)


    Here is the BMJ's take on corruption ion UK healthcare - specifically related to our COVID response where there is enormous political pressure on all actors:

    When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die

    Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science
    When good science is suppressed by the medical-political complex, people die Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public…
    www.bmj.com


    Politicians and governments are suppressing science. They do so in the public interest, they say, to accelerate availability of diagnostics and treatments. They do so to support innovation, to bring products to market at unprecedented speed. Both of these reasons are partly plausible; the greatest deceptions are founded in a grain of truth. But the underlying behaviour is troubling.

    Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health.1 Politicians and industry are responsible for this opportunistic embezzlement. So too are scientists and health experts. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated in an emergency—a time when it is even more important to safeguard science.


    The UK’s pandemic response provides at least four examples of suppression of science or scientists. First, the membership, research, and deliberations of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) were initially secret until a press leak forced transparency.2 The leak revealed inappropriate involvement of government advisers in SAGE, while exposing under-representation from public health, clinical care, women, and ethnic minorities. Indeed, the government was also recently ordered to release a 2016 report on deficiencies in pandemic preparedness, Operation Cygnus, following a verdict from the Information Commissioner’s Office.34


    Next, a Public Health England report on covid-19 and inequalities. The report’s publication was delayed by England’s Department of Health; a section on ethnic minorities was initially withheld and then, following a public outcry, was published as part of a follow-up report.56 Authors from Public Health England were instructed not to talk to the media. Third, on 15 October, the editor of the Lancet complained that an author of a research paper, a UK government scientist, was blocked by the government from speaking to media because of a “difficult political landscape.”7

    Now, a new example concerns the controversy over point-of-care antibody testing for covid-19.8 The prime minister’s Operation Moonshot depends on immediate and wide availability of accurate rapid diagnostic tests.9 It also depends on the questionable logic of mass screening—currently being trialled in Liverpool with a suboptimal PCR test.1011


    The incident relates to research published this week by The BMJ, which finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers.1213 Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office.14 Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.


    Pharma hidden Influence over UK Parliament

    Pharma has a 'hidden' influence over U.K. Parliament members through funding, analysis shows
    "The financial ties, particularly in the context of public health policy, require much greater oversight," researchers say.
    www.statnews.com


    The pharmaceutical industry has developed a “hidden web of policy influence” over members of the U.K. parliament through payments that run the risk of creating of “institutional corruption,” according to a new analysis.


    Who can we trust?


    Inevitably, the financial pressures on big companies, and the political pressures on politicians, means that without strong and continuous efforts to keep things clean there will be corruption.


    I can understand US citizens being particularly concerned. The US political system more than most is run on money, where politicians at almost all levels need money to get elected and then must pay back in favours to get re-elected.


    Trump - with funding from individual people - does not change that. Trump is funded by a relatively small and cohesive segment of the US population who have tribal loyalty to his ideas, although he also gains from big oil and the gun lobby. You can argue that these small donations from a large number of people make Trump's motivations purer - but of course they come with their own problems as when - to please his base - during the pandemic Trump was unable strongly to recommend vaccination even though this is what he had done himself and believed was right.


    The countries who do relatively better are those whose political systems are:

    • Transparent
    • Less driven by money
    • Honest

    The mainstream media - in a pluralistic society with free press - have varying political views but all are gatekeepers who ensure some level of honesty in what they say, and can easily be held to account when they are dishonest. (Yes - the media can be corrupt too - but the pressures on them to be truthful are higher).


    <politics>

    Social media has shaken things up by rewarding (enormously) dishonesty. Trump and Johnson are examples of this, but really all politicians have now the same new pressures to avoid truth and transparency (which does not win them votes) and instead carefully manage a social media profile which uses tribal memes to attract and keep followers. It turns out that if you say whatever appears to win an argument in a sound-bite, the fact that what you say one day contradicts what you said previously is not (if you are Trump or Johnson) an electoral disadvantage. This, I think, is because the electorate care more about perceived tribal positions than they do about integrity and honesty. In both cases everyone knew Trump and Johnson were liars, but elected them anyway.


    Personally - I am against that. I think we need transparency and honesty and decency in politics more than we need specific left or right wing policies, or even specific social policies. For me, even though I think climate change is a real emergency - I'd rather have a decent and honest politician taking less action than a liar with no decency taking more action. In the long run lies do not pay.

    </politics>


    Pharma and trials


    (1) drug/vaccine trials run by pharma will always have some push to make results look good for own drugs. How much this is a problem depends on the transparency and quality of the trials.

    (2) in the covid pandemic the unique and good thing is that governments throughout the world our motivated to find cheap repurposed drugs that can help, and have put large amounts of money into trials to find them. This counteracts the understandable but regrettable tendency of pharma to put trial money into those products that make it the most money.

    (3) you can find whatever you want on the internet. Official positions that are political. Scientists, doctors, and journalists talking about their own varied positions.

    (4) The idea that antivaxxer memes are suppressed is weird. they are propagated through social media more than boring conventional positions. Social media algorithms will always reward tribalism and division. Antivaxxer memes are by definition divisive because they need to assume that most experts are fools or corrupt, so they cannot survive via expert scrutiny - by definition they fail this, and the antivaxxers will say that is because most scientists are corrupt.

    (5) Luckily, because of the internet, antivaxxer memes like those propagated (here) by Arne Burkhrdt can be and are picked up and dissected by multiple actors. If you bother to read and consider the details it is pretty easy to see what merit (or lack of merit) these ideas have. For thiose who do not have the time/background to do that themselves there are numerous internet blogs with their own analyses. Some of these are very mainstream but many are from independent actors who specifically have a mission to try to work out for themselves what is the truth when there are tribal disputes.


    Ivermectin


    I actually find the antivaxxer/ivermectin link fascinating. In theory there should be no link between antivaxxer memes and ivermectin (or previously hydrochoroquine) proponents. There are three things that join these strands of opinion together:


    (1) to support ivermectin, or antivaxxer memes, you need to have the view that true information is mostly suppressed by a corrupt mainstream society. Some people tend to be more suspicious of mainstream views from experts than others, and that emotional reaction colours how information is processed.

    (2) In a pandemic where we all know many people die, and vaccines prevent that, you need to argue for some alternative therapy if you are going to tell people vaccines are not worth it.

    (3) Conspiracy theories that big pharma is bad fit both ivermectin is being suppressed and antivaxxer memes.


    I am not myself against ivermectin. I am against the single-minded (and frankly deceitful) promotion of it.


    When you compare the evidence on ivermectin and remdesivir there is not much in it. I am sympathetic that remdesivir got approval because pharma played the game and had some influence, whereas ivermectin did not because no big pharma wanted to back it.


    But then the contrary view is that governments everywhere desperately would like any drug (preferably cheap) that reduces hospitalisation. they have money to throw at trials. If ivermectin really works any country like the UK with a government funded health system would want to use it. A lot.


    In addition, the reasons doctors don't like to approve "bat medicine" packs of whatever drugs might possibly help is interesting. I don't have a view on this one. Maybe in a pandemic we should abandon normal standards and encourage experimentation. The problems with this are not obvious, but can be seen when you think about it.

    (1) Suppose we do that. Hydrochloroquine, for example, would be used by many doctors because just as they are influenced by big pharma they are also influenced by public campaigns. The problem with this is the standard medical one. Doctors cannot, anecdotally, determine what works when "work" is defined by 0.5% of your patients dying instead of 1% of them dying and other time-varying factors, like a pandemic going through different age groups at different times, skew death rates.

    (2) Scientists doing drug discovery KNOW THIS. They know that non-RCT trials in the past always give overly positive results, that good info comes from RCTs, and you need big ones to detect small effects. Further, they know that poorly conducted trials (even RCTs) will inevitably give false positive results, because of file drawer effect, cherry-picking outcomes, etc. Shockingly we now know that at least one of the influential ivermectoin RCTs was fraudulent. In a pandemic you do not have the time to do proper peer review and revision of papers, which would easily discover such blatantly poor science. But scientists doing meta-analyses are not used to deliberate falsification. Non-scientists don't see the need to discount where without any deliberate falsification poor methodology means you cannot trust the results. Anyway for me the way thst the big high quality RCTs don't find clear evidence of ivermectin helping is compelling. It may help, in the right dose, for the right subset of people, but it is not an obvious positive candidate.

    (3) There is one final link here. Many people will be against promotion of an unproven but popular drug as a cure for COVID exactly because it will (ivermectin has) lead to people not taking otehr precautions which we know work, like vaccination. Overall that is bad for hospital systems (and people, some of whom die). That I think is what weighs against the "bat medicine" view that you put together 10 things which might work and do not have obvious side effects.

    (4) Doctors have this view (I don't share it but am no expert) that taking lots of medicines, even if individually safe, is a bad idea because there are always a few unexpected side effects and more ion combination. They see a penalty in dosing patients with things not proven to work that we do not. You don't need big pharma influence for doctors genuinely to hold that view.




    What about Scientists?


    I just have not found, anywhere, any credible arguments saying that scientists as a whole, or mainstream scientific journals, are corrupt.


    Sure, individual journals, individual scientists, can be corrupt. The great merit of pluralism in Journals, universities, scientists, is that every view can be and is represented. Tenure, and the fact that scientists (enough of them) have big egos and are motivated by the desire to uncover and propagate truth as they see it means that all views get a good airing and the process of reviewing the literature and making sense of it usually delivers good results.


    That does NOT mean that mainstream scientific opinion is always correct. Of course not, the whole point of science is that as more evidence comes in views must and do change. Scientists are not judged by are they right, but by do they contribute new ideas, or helpful additional detail on old ideas, to our overall picture.


    In medicine the pressures on scientists to be corrupted are larger than normal, because pharma companies fund research. But (at least in the UK) governments fund research and also university departments provide a buffer where those who seek truth are recognised and rewarded.


    The great merit of science is transparency. Published views can be (and are) argued, with citations, and anyone can read the differing arguments and come to their own views. If corrupt scientists distort this it is pretty obvious. If biassed scientists distort this it is also pretty obvious.


    That works for anyone with the expertise and time to read the complete literature in an area. In practice that means experts. What does not work is me or you dipping into one paper promoting some way out view, deciding we like it, and then googling all confirmatory views. It is natural that we do that, but it will lead to wrong understanding unless we have the discipline that scientists must have to look for the contrary views and compare them.


    Which is why I especially like the detailed written arguments and rebuttals like this one where you here replies from both sides to each other and even without being an expert can often reach a clear conclusion - when one side is clearly wrong as is the case with 99% of antivaxxer arguments.


    I also very much like arguments from mediators who are interested in the way information is reported and why debates become flame wars who have no personal axe to grind, and see tribal arguments as something that with good will can be resolved. This one one on ivermectin.


    So why am I so against the deep dark conspiracy theories that W and RB and FM1 like?


    • They rely on saying that nearly all experts are fools or corrupt, and privileging the work of a few outliers.
    • I realise on LENR forum we would be inclined to do that (well - maybe me less than most).
    • But, when, even as educated mathematically trained non-experts we look at the antivaxxer arguments 99% of them have signs of being wrong that non-experts can detect: provably wrong use of statistics, self-proclaimed novel theories without any review of the background of the area which they claim to represent. These things can be detected by any of us willing to read up on stuff as necessary at a pretty basic level, and to spend the time looking at references and citations.


    In these times of COVID trying to be as truthful as possible about what the science tells us, even though that is very incomplete, is more important than usual.


    Supporting antivaxxer memes because we like the politics, or have some underlying fixed view about corruption and therefore fit every argument to that, may be very human, but is unhelpful and all good-hearted people when they detect this should speak up against it.


    A happy New Year to you all. I cannot honestly predict less corruption - it seems to me that politics in particular is in a bad state at the moment where the pressures to be dishonest are higher than ever - but maybe we can all agree that seeking truth is worthwhile.


    THH

    SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant replication in human respiratory tract ex vivo


    SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant replication in human respiratory tract ex vivo
    Research Square is a preprint platform that makes research communication faster, fairer, and more useful.
    www.researchsquare.com



    Abstract

    Emergence of SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern (VOC) with progressively increased transmissibility between humans is a threat to global public health. Omicron variant also evades immunity from natural infection or vaccines1. It is unclear whether its exceptional transmissibility is due to immune evasion or inherent virological properties.


    We compared the replication competence and cellular tropism of the wild type (WT) virus, D614G, Alpha, Beta, Delta and Omicron variants in ex vivo explant cultures of human bronchus and lung. Dependence on TMPRSS2 for infection was also evaluated. We show that Omicron replicated faster than all other SARS-CoV-2 in the bronchus but less efficiently in the lung parenchyma. All VOCs had similar cellular tropism as the WT. Delta was more dependent on serine protease than other VOCs tested.


    Our findings demonstrate that Omicron is inherently able to replicate faster than other variants known to date and this likely contributes to its inherently higher transmissibility, irrespective of its ability to evade antibody immunity. The lower replication competence of Omicron in human lung may be compatible with reduced severity but the determinants of severe disease are multifactorial. These findings provide important biological clues to the transmissibility and pathogenesis of SARS-CoV-2 VOCs

    Fact. The vaccine has been around now for over a year and in that time we have seen more infection more hospitalized and more death

    Fact. There is a large portion of the world population that will never take a Covid vaccine

    Fact. There is no outpatient treatment for Covid. The reason behind this is most assets went to vaccine development and the leftovers for early treatment.

    Fact. You have taken a vaccine only approach early treatment is of little concern to you as you have very rarely commented of any of the early treatment studies that I've posted.

    Fact. I have posted more science on this thread than any two combined, and you post your opinions

    Fact. Positive results from 2 hydroxychloroquine were withheld from publication for over 9 months, how do you explain that.

    Fact. The united states CDC has from the beginning given confusing information and fake data, look back to the mask debate, no mask only if your sick, no cloth masks a week later go for the cloth. Ya a real confidence builder. And the clown running the show over there has become the boy who cried wolf. Ya great leadership!

    Fact. Nordic countries have seen a signal and have stopped using moderna in under 30, your CDC as well as mine don't see that signal, therefore it doesn't exist. Ya a real confidence builder.

    Fact. Question vaccine efficacy and you are an anti Vaxer in Tommy's eyes

    Fact. Looks like Jed's south stupid rubs off on tommy

    Will someone remind me ... who's the biggest scammer (investments vs returns)?

    BLP ?

    https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/83776-15#funding

    At LEAST $143 raised. (Many entries grayed out).

    Deliveries ...? Orders .... ?

    Even semi-independent bring-your-own-instruments tests?

    Nope, nope, nope.

    Compared to Rossi's $10M (IH ... from which he repaid all previous investors who cashed in).

    Oh ... I forgot. BLP DOES have a full time professional videographer, right? Compared to Frank and Rossi's feeble efforts.


    BLP is undoubtedly more successful. But they can claim to believe what they are promoting. They are not (AFAIK) ever telling people it is OK to use average meters to measure spiky electrical waveforms, or that only total emissivity is relevant when using IR thermography to measure temperature.


    You can argue Rossi makes these mistakes because he is incompetent, not dishonest.


    But then BLP have never actually fessed up to deliberately lying to serious investment partners the way Rossi claims (it may be that he did not in fact lie, but then he knew his device was not working, which means he lied elsewhere, and to the Court...) to have done, nor do I know of any deliberate lies from BLP.


    Since scam => product does not work + deliberate lies

    (1) BLP and Rossi are equal on the product does not work stakes

    (2) Rossi lies, much more obviously


    So if BLP are scammers, they are much much cleverer scammers than Rossi.

    Mark H


    Obviously not weary enough. You've said you'll give him "one last chance" 3 times to my knowledge. You're like Charlie Brown with the football and Leonardo Lucy is going to keep pulling it away.


    Good Ole Charlie Brown.


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Contrarian views


    Here are three contrarian views from me:


    Vaccine passports: it is pretty difficult to justify these, except on the pragmatic ground that they are very effective (France is good example) at upping vaccination rates, with a double advantage to society, less health service use, and lower R value. That is not the reason usually given, but it is the real reason. Although vaccination reduces the chances of infection, so does past infection. Now, with omicron, a negative LFD test within 12 hours is as good or better protection against infection than a booster vaccination within 10 weeks. So not allowing LFD tests as alternate to vaccination is wrong in terms of direct safety at an event - even if it is right in terms of overall indirect safety.


    We should vaccinate the world from self-interest. I can't see that working at the moment. Current vaccines are not good enough to eliminate omicron, and anyway new variants will happen. In addition underdeveloped countries find it much more difficult to get 80% + vaccination. Finally, underdeveloped countries are a much smaller overall disease burden from COVID because they have younger populations. The argument for vaccinating the world is:

    economic - we need travel to be uniform and trusted

    moral: vaccines are most effective reducing harm when given to the oldest people.


    You do not need a very large percentage of underdeveloped population to vaccinate say all over-60s, which would deliver a large health improvement, but not stop endemic COVID.


    Lockdowns are obviously the best solution. This is such a complex topic. If you are going to lock down enough to get R < 1 you should do it as soon as possible, The economic burden is lower because lockdown can be shorter. But then the countries that do best in one wave (fewer infections) will usually have less immunity and do worst in the next one. There is then how do treatment and vaccines and variants change over time - both of these things are not knowable in advance. Delaying infections is worthwhile if COVID becomes less lethal through some combination of variant, treatment, vaccines. It is also worthwhile if getting COVID earlier does not protect against the harm from catching it again later on.


    THH

    by definition you are an anti Vaxer. How does it feel Thomas, just saying you question something such as passports

    Huxley is an anti Vaxer, how do you like the label Hippocrate

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.