The Playground

    Quote from Shane D.

    It does look clear that the vaccinated suffered much more all cause deaths than the unvaccinated group. I would be curious what THH thinks of this data?


    Will keep an open mind about this just to make THH happy, but there have been other reports of overall mortality increasing, but those could be explained by the deadly effect of lockdowns (suicides/drug overdoses/murders/undiagnosed cancers, etc.). This is the first I saw though, where they separated out the vaxxed, from the unvaxxed.


    Importantly for me, I survived the 9 months after my second shot. Yeah! :) Guess I will have to buy the "I survived the vaccine" T-shirt.

    Glad you have open mind.


    The reasons for all cause mortality deviations are complex - and you have not considered them yet! I gave an incomplete overview above.

    I recommend these 4 posts. If they don't answer your uncertainty we could discuss further?


    You might also want to observe a pattern here. the antivaxxers leap on statistics that are known (like, before this, everyone knowledgable said) to be highly unreliable and difficult to decode.


    Examples:

    • VAERS raw data
    • all-cause mortality


    I wonder why that would be?


    :)


    THH

    Quote from Dr Richard*

    THHuxleynew - so who exactly are we talking too, a chameleon-like dilettante who puts forward logical arguments (which are very good by the way-this is not a criticism) - I just wanted to pin down your eloquent scientific or philosophical background. Arts or Science or Technology?

    My formal background is maths/engineering at degree/doc/post-doc level + industry, but I've always been a jackdaw and with good maths starting point and uni (part of Maths) Physics have enjoyed learning a lot of stuff.


    I have little Biology (and only A-level Chemistry) so in terms of background I stick to that statistics stuff (all those drug and vaccine trials + real-world data) - where Maths means I can understand what real experts are saying, and detect a lot of the BS (an easy thing on this thread).


    THH


    PS - but - as part of my jackdoor mentality and due to a mother who was a good writer - I have some familiarity with literature.

    Quote from Dr Richard*

    So let's resolve our little row with Zeus46 - which anti-retroviral would you take given a cheap tried and tested (Avigan) or the new little - tested Paxlovid?

    Paxlovid:

    (1) definitely works

    (2) is not as good as the stunningly good initial trial results indicate.

    (3) is still good

    (4) does not have mutagenicity question marks that molnupiravir has


    Avigan:

    No evidence it works


    12 Things To Know About Paxlovid, the Latest COVID-19 Pill
    Paxlovid is an oral antiviral pill to treat COVID-19 that can be taken soon after symptoms surface to help keep high-risk patients from getting so sick that…
    www.yalemedicine.org


    THH

    You have a real problem taking this route. Delay of second dose was based on recommendation by British health authorities.

    Results were not released to the public for 18 months. That's a real problem, not the fact that he died.

    Chinese Billionaire Makes Fortune Off Unproven Herbal Therapy Thanks to China's Gov & WHO Public Report


    Chinese Billionaire Makes Fortune Off Unproven Herbal Therapy Thanks to China's Gov & WHO Public Report
    www.trialsitenews.com



    It looks like drugs, politics, and power—not to mention money—influenced Communist China’s central government’s recommendations for COVID-19 treatments. Recently, it’s become apparent that one of China’s top scientists and richest men, with a fortune that was approaching $6 billion, benefitted from the government’s recommendation that people use Wu Yiling’s traditional Chinese medicine remedy called Lianhua Qingwen. This is a medicine that goes back over 2,000 years to the Han Dynasty. It turns out that this herbal remedy is one of three the Community Party-directed central government recommended. In fact, this herbal remedy was recently distributed to SARS-CoV-2 Omicron infection hotspots, including Shanghai and Hong Kong. But another billionaire in China triggered an online debate as to the efficacy of Lianhua Qingwen, which has led to a dramatically changing situation.


    Reported recently in Japan Times, Venus Feng writes that the stock in Wu’s company called Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical Co. rapidly increased during the pandemic, making Mr. Wu a fortune. Yet, thanks to the online rabble-rousing of Wang Sicong (the other Chinese billionaire in this tale of drugs, politics, and power), the stock has precipitously declined. This has led to a loss for Wu and his family totaling $2 billion, according to Bloomberg Billionaires Index.


    An investment bank analyst named Kenny Ng with Hong Kong-based Everbright Securities International shared with the Japan Times, “Now Yiling is facing a test to restore its market recognition.” Ng acknowledged that demand for Lianhua Qingwen should still be robust as China endures an ongoing Omicron-driven pandemic crisis, yet over the long term, the analyst wonders if such growth can be sustained.


    What is Lianhua Qingwen?

    On a list https://apic.org/advocacy_upda…dulent-covid-19-products/ by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a fraudulent product marketed for COVID-19, according to Chinese media (South China Morning Post) Lianhua Qingwen was developed back in 2003 to treat the first SARS-CoV-1 outbreak. China’s health commission according to SCMP listed the herbal medicine as a treatment for flu and respiratory disease by 2004.


    Delivered in the form of capsules, the herbal medicine contains 13 ingredients, including “apricot kernel, rhubarb, honeysuckle, and forsythia powder.” According to ancient Chinese medicine, this formula goes back to the Han dynasty from 202 BC to 220 AD.


    According to Lin Zhixiu, a professor and associate director of the school of Chinese medicine at the University of Hong Kong (CUHK), the drug “can help clear the virus and remove toxins” while helping the lung expand and lower fevers.


    WHO Move—a Marketing Support?

    TrialSite recently reported on the World Health Organization's (WHO) warm embrace of traditional Chinese medicine even while it ignores repurposed drugs in the West, such as fluvoxamine or ivermectin and others.


    The latter has been called dead on arrival by mainstream media, yet major studies sponsored by academic medical centers and the U.S. government aren’t even complete yet.


    It's true the WHO hasn’t approved or recommended the use of Lianhua Qingwen as a regiment for COVID-19 specifically, yet the recent report covered by few media other than TrialSite raises numerous questions about the nature of the therapies, the evidence, and WHO’s relationship with China.


    So why did WHO issue the report? Yes, they did not explicitly recommend the Chinese herbal therapies and suggested more research, but they did imply that real evidence was mounting for possible use. See TrialSite’s report here.


    What caused the plunge in Wu’s stock price?

    According to Japan Times, on April 15th, the competing Wang, a billionaire real estate scion, shared a video on Weibo raising questions as to whether WHO actually recommended Wu’s herbal therapy as a regimen for COVID-19. Calling on the Chinese social media platform for securities regulators in China to investigate Yiling, the remaining outcome has been a deep decline in the Wu family fortune.


    Who is Wu Yiling?

    As reported in Japan Times, Wu’s father was a doctor who practiced in the northern Hebei province near Beijing, becoming interested in medicine as a teen. Now 72-years old, he studied traditional Chinese medicine and received an advanced degree at the Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine in 1982.


    After practicing herbal medicine, he launched the venture Yiling in 1992, developing herbal remedies for a range of indications from colds and flu to heart disease, diabetes, and more. The company went public in 2011, listing on the Shenzhen exchange.


    Drugs, Politics and Power—and Money

    One thing becomes clearer over time from this pandemic, whatever country one investigates: some elites are making enormous sums of money on products that in many cases are of questionable quality, effect, and even safety.


    TrialSite observes a growing confluence of cozy industry, regulator, and health authority relationships that benefit some shareholders while possibly hurting the rest of society. We have to wonder about WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus' “warm” embrace of the recent Chinese traditional herbal medicine report as treatments for COVID-19. Was this politically and economically motivated as much as scientifically grounded? The winners selected by the Chinese government, including Wu’s company, made a fortune. Now thanks to a whistleblower—or a jealous competitive Chinese billionaire—the Wu fortune goes in the other direction. Do the Chinese public (and patients) benefit

    Quote from Fm1

    TrialSite observes a growing confluence of cozy industry, regulator, and health authority relationships that benefit some shareholders while possibly hurting the rest of society.

    We all observe this. Pfizer generated about 100'000'000'000 income with a fake CoV-19 vaccine that strongly enhances the overall death rate...


    This is second time in history (after vioxx) where a killer therapy is allowed for making megatons of money. Even worse Pfizer itself did already prove this enhancement of the overall death rate.


    So FDA willfully allowed/did clear a killer drug.


    On the other side herbs - like Sutherlandia - are well known antiviral's since more than 6000 years! Same for Nigella sativa.

    Quote from Fm1

    Results were not released to the public for 18 months. That's a real problem, not the fact that he died.

    It is only a problem if their being released would have changed anything. I can't see what?


    And the, as for why not released sooner, it needs investigation. However my guess is that this is typical hospital managers covering their backs which regrettably we sometimes get in the NHS.

    Quote from Dr Richard*

    So let's resolve our little row with Zeus46 - which anti-retroviral would you take given a cheap tried and tested (Avigan) or the new little - tested Paxlovid?


    A row? I don’t think so. You’ve been challenged back up your daft claim that avigan is as effective as paxlovid. You can’t, as it this doesn’t exist. That you fail to understand this means that any discussion is pointless.

    Quote from Zeus46

    And Sutherlandia is what Muti men resort to after they run out of Albino body parts

    Our child clown is back!


    Sutherlandia has been used for AIDS therapy long before any drugs have been available. It's success rate has been a very high 50% compared to 0 with no therapy.


    Of course Zeus can take his favorite Albino med. To become a grown up may be its to late..

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You might distrust my go-to data scientist - you can for yourself work out who is likely telling the truth by comparing the level of detail in the various accounts.


    Its a no brainer if you put that work in.

    I did check out Jeffery Morris' article you linked to for FM1: UK death data artifacts: "Stragglers" who delay vaccine doses a select group with higher death risk (covid-datascience.com)


    All it appears he does is take the same data the UK put out (which on the face of it makes the vaccines look bad), makes up a new group he calls "stragglers", then makes up some new graphs that makes the vaccine look good. Here is his definition of stragglers:


    "For this blog post, I will highlight one specific artifact that is persistent in these data in which the small set of "stragglers" who delay receiving either 1st, 2nd or 3rd dose have higher death rates than those receiving their doses on schedule. I focus on all-cause deaths here."


    Even he admits this needs further explanation by the UK, and more research to tease out the true conclusion the numbers are telling us:


    "Given this undeniable pattern in the data, it is important for the UK ONS to investigate and understand it. The death dates should be carefully checked to ensure there is no misclassification, and the relative demographic and clinical characteristics of the "stragglers" delaying 1st, 2nd or 3rd dose relative to their counterparts receiving the recommended doses on schedule."


    And admits:


    "It is always tricky to interpret observational data, but this is especially true in a dynamic setting like the vaccine rollout in which the vaccination prioritization and individual vaccination decisions impact the cross-section in each vaccination subgroup, with some of these subgroups becoming small, select subgroups with higher death risks. Follow up studies to characterize these subgroups is necessary to understand the patterns in these data."


    This just proves to me that you are right that the anti-vaxxers can always find a friendly author to interpret the data to support their belief, but EQUALLY, that the vaxxers like yourself can, and do, do the same. At least in this particular case, the anti-vaxxers are looking at the data straight up without any fudge factors, while Jeffery the vaxxer adds in his own.... "stragglers".



    Shane,


    All this does is show either (1) you do not read stuff properly or (2) you are as political as the antivaxxwer - arguing to promote a position rather than genuinely curious.


    You are quoting selectively and leaving out the reasons why these "stragglers" are likely an artifact:


    I guess I have to do it myself?


    First - what is the straggle issue in the date:


    The bottom panel shows the vaccination of the 90+ age group, demonstrating percent of age group in each vaccination status.

    • By late January, the vast majority of the age group had received 1st dose of vaccine, and the small proportion left unvaccinated, the "stragglers" who had not vaccinated on schedule had ~3x the death risk of those who received 1st dose. This is evident in the unvaccinated group (green line, top plot).
    • By mid-April, the vast majority of those in the age group who had received a 1st dose had received their second dose, and the "stragglers" who did not receive their 2nd dose on schedule had >3x the death risk of those who received 2nd dose on schedule. This is evident in the group >21d after 1st dose (red line, top plot)
    • By early November, the vast majority of those in the age group who had received a 2nd dose had received their 3rd booster dose, and the "stragglers" who did not receive a 3rd booster dose on schedule had 2.5-3x the death risk of those who received 3rd booster dose on schedule. This is evident in the group >21d after 2nd dose (red line, second plot).

    While the death rates are very high for these vaccination subgroups at these specific time points, the corresponding death counts are not so high since these spikes of death rates occur when the corresponding vaccination subgroup gets very small, select group comprising a small percentage of the age group.


    We see this pattern for all the older and middle age groups.


    I hope we are all agreed this is a fair summary.


    It is BTW very difficult to see how this can be some nefarious adverse effect of the vaccines! And it shows only because the numbers in these groups are so small.


    And what could be the reason?


    What could be causing this phenomenon?

    1. Missclassification: Neil et al. suggest that it could be the result of misclassification -- that deaths soon after 1st dose rollout were misattributed to unvaccinated, deaths soon after 2nd dose rollout are attributed to 1st dose, and deaths soon after 3rd dose booster rollout are attributed to 2nd dose. It is difficult to envision how that could be the case given the ONS specifically defined categories <21d after 1st, 2nd or 3rd dose. It is clear from these definitions that they did not routinely assign events the first week or two after inoculation to the unvaccinated group, as some claim without evidence. I have yet to seen a reasonable explanation for how one proposes the misclassification error occurred, or how it would explain this artifact, but given the timing it is possible there is some sort of misclassification or misrecording of some of the death times.
    2. Selection bias: We consistently see this increased death risk at the point when the vast majority have received their next dose, leaving a small and shrinking select group not receiving their dose on schedule. This small group of "stragglers" includes those too sick to receive vaccine, who would clearly be a select group at higher risk of death. It would also include those who experienced medical complications after the previous dose, and so delayed or refused subsequent doses, another group one would expect to have a higher risk of death. We need more information on the demographic characteristics of these "stragglers" to see if there are any evident factors explaining the higher death risk.

    Given this undeniable pattern in the data, it is important for the UK ONS to investigate and understand it. The death dates should be carefully checked to ensure there is no misclassification, and the relative demographic and clinical characteristics of the "stragglers" delaying 1st, 2nd or 3rd dose relative to their counterparts receiving the recommended doses on schedule.


    Now whereas the antivaxxers (looking at this same data) leap to a "nefarious misclassification" conclusion - without reviewing the alternates


    (why? Hope you are rmebering this Shane - because they are not behaving scientifically)


    My guy has done his research, and offers all poss solutions. You really do have to be an antivaxxer to see this group as misclassifications. How would it work?


    However selection bias is the bane of all such data, and in this case because we are dealing with such a small group it is very clear this is a likely solution.


    This small group of "stragglers" includes those too sick to receive vaccine, who would clearly be a select group at higher risk of death. It would also include those who experienced medical complications after the previous dose, and so delayed or refused subsequent doses, another group one would expect to have a higher risk of death.


    And, again because he is a scientist, with NO AGENDA, my guy says we need further research to try furthr and identify what is going on here.


    You are of course welcome to view my guy as biassed one way and the poorly written leaving stuff out antivaxxers accounts as of equal merit.


    This example exactly makes my point that you can tell who is biassed (or just a bad scientist) and who not from what gets left out.


    THH

    Quote from Wyttenbach

    Sutherlandia has been used for AIDS therapy long before any drugs have been available. It's success rate has been a very high 50% compared to 0 with no therapy.


    Nonsense. Another Wyttenfact.


    Although I did find this paper:


    https://www.ajol.info/index.php/asr/article/download/74296/64942


    In South Africa the uncertainty surrounding Sutherlandia is evidenced in newspaper banners and online sites that refer to ‘the great Sutherlandia debate’, or ask ‘Sutherlandia: miracle herb or poison?’ . News of the clinical trials was similarly met with mixed and ambiguous responses. A professional body for doctors lauded this as scientific progress, but simultaneously added that they had collected abundant testimonies that traditional healers use human body parts in herbal mixtures. =O


    An activist non- governmental organisation that promotes access to and the use of antiretrovirals, the interests and rights of people who are HIV positive or are living with AIDS, expressed scepticism about Sutherlandia and its trials. A spokesperson correctly stated that all the pharmacological compounds in the plant is not yet known to science and warned against the use of plant medicines based in ‘belief ’ rather than ‘fact’.


    LOL


    …and that was the second link under ‘sutherlandia aids clinical trial’

    There is always an alternative ready to go.


    External Content www.youtube.com
    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.

    I agree with you on the herbs. The problem I see is the NIH is only concerned with the latest and greatest. How many times have the vaccine warriors tell me to follow experts but when the WHO sees a benefit it is not widely reported in western news media. I used black seed oil and honey for a bout with omicrom. Some here called it quackery, yet keeps telling me to follow the science. I've posted studies on most of these so called quack treatments with little response because it's not their latest and greatest. I look for inexpensive ways to treat and am called anti vaxer. Without early treatment Covid waves continue. The new anti Virals are only meant for at risk patients so the majority still is left to wait till you turn blue. At least trialsite tells it like it is.

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.