Covid, the "lockdowns" etc.

[Zelen]

Worth keeping in mind that US Congressmen, their staff, and their families, are treated using an early treatment regimen featuring Ivermectin, similar to the FLCCC recommendations.

Why one standard of care for Congress, and another one for everyone else?

[Pat]

Worth keeping in mind that US Congressmen, their staff, and their families, are treated using an early treatment regimen featuring Ivermectin, similar to the FLCCC recommendations.

Why one standard of care for Congress, and another one for everyone else?

Have you forgotten Obamacare, and how completely and utterly they shot down the suggestion that all of Congress would have to get their insurance on the exchanges?

[Kiero]

As I keep saying, the "vaccines" cause the variants. They've proliferated, mutating at a faster rate since the jabbing began:

Chart

This is discussed at 02:11:00 here, a lecture given by someone who knows what they're talking about. He also covers why the "immunity" provided by the jabs is essentially worthless compared to natural immunity from exposure and recovery.

Course the reality is the only people who get immunity from the jabs are the manufacturers of them.

[HappyDaze]

As I keep saying, the "vaccines" cause the variants. They've proliferated, mutating at a faster rate since the jabbing began:

Chart

This is discussed at 02:11:00 here, a lecture given by someone who knows what they're talking about. He also covers why the "immunity" provided by the jabs is essentially worthless compared to natural immunity from exposure and recovery.

Course the reality is the only people who get immunity from the jabs are the manufacturers of them.

Your inability to differentiate correlation from causation along with totally ignoring other correlations shows willful misrepresentation...or total stupidity...on your part. Might be a mix of the two.

[Kiero]

Your inability to differentiate correlation from causation along with totally ignoring other correlations shows willful misrepresentation...or total stupidity...on your part. Might be a mix of the two.

Bless, look who doesn't have a rebuttal to actual science (not paid-for Big Pharma propaganda).

[HappyDaze]

Your inability to differentiate correlation from causation along with totally ignoring other correlations shows willful misrepresentation...or total stupidity...on your part. Might be a mix of the two.

Bless, look who doesn't have a rebuttal to actual science (not paid-for Big Pharma propaganda).

Ok, let's start with "what does your vaccine date" represent? How much of the population had it ar that time in the places where the variants appeared? Why do the variants supposedly caused by the vaccine often seem to have begun prior to that line?

You're using statistics in a misreprestative way as the worst kind of lie.

[Kiero]

Ok, let's start with "what does your vaccine date" represent? How much of the population had it ar that time in the places where the variants appeared? Why do the variants supposedly caused by the vaccine often seem to have begun prior to that line?

You're using statistics in a misreprestative way as the worst kind of lie.

Guess who only looked at the diagram, and didn't bother listening to any part of the lecture explaining the mechanism by which the jabs cause variation...

[HappyDaze]

Ok, let's start with "what does your vaccine date" represent? How much of the population had it ar that time in the places where the variants appeared? Why do the variants supposedly caused by the vaccine often seem to have begun prior to that line?

You're using statistics in a misreprestative way as the worst kind of lie.

Guess who only looked at the diagram, and didn't bother listening to any part of the lecture explaining the mechanism by which the jabs cause variation...

I don't usually look at any of your nonsense. Can you answers my questions, or not?

[Zelen]

These data are derived from a rushed, non-FDA-approved, ongoing investigational product roll-out, and our conclusions are thus limited by the information at hand. In addition to the 12-15-year-old age group data being very early, it is vital to acknowledge that these reports represent a fraction of the actual total. Thus, due to both the problems of under-reporting and the known lag in report processing, this analysis reveals a strong signal from the VAERS data that the risk of suffering CIRM – especially males is unacceptably high. Again, children are not a high-risk group for COVID-19 respiratory illness, and yet they are the high-risk group for CIRM.

Efficacy of these products needs to be assessed by immunological assays and long-term studies are required, while safety needs to be evaluated by rigorous clinical, laboratory and imaging assessments of severe reported adverse events such as CIRM. Autopsies should be done in cases of cardiovascular-related deaths temporally associated with COVID-19 injectables. It is reasonable to use the precautionary principle in this particular setting since an alarming number of reports are coming from young males between the ages of 12 and 15. Boys of these ages should be carefully monitored for warning signs of myocarditis which many may pass off such as pallor, chest pain, shortness of breath or lethargy, following dose 1 with the aim of seeking prompt evaluation and avoiding dose 2.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280621002267

[Mistwell]

As I keep saying, the "vaccines" cause the variants.

As I keep saying, you're an idiot.

[HappyDaze]

So that study that 0.1% of vaccine recipients got endocarditis was retracted when it was found that the actual rate is closer to 0.004%. This is why I shake my head when people are quick to point to preliminary non-peer-reviewed sources.

[Kiero]

Pfizer have just started phase 4 trials of their jab: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/10/world/pfizer-vaccinate-entire-city-toledo-brazil.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes

I remember when that used to happen before general release of a treatment...

[Zelen]

So that study that 0.1% of vaccine recipients got endocarditis was retracted when it was found that the actual rate is closer to 0.004%. This is why I shake my head when people are quick to point to preliminary non-peer-reviewed sources.

Myocarditis, and the error was a simple mathematical error caught by online commenters. FWIW what's your source on the actual incidence rate? Given the estimates such as 1/4500 figure cited from the Israeli MOH actually lines up pretty well with the (now-retracted but AFAIK uncorrected) paper estimates.

Worth reading why Peer Review is a poor alternative to actually reading and critiquing (aka the Scientific Method), from former editor of the BMJ:

So peer review is a flawed process, full of easily identified defects with little evidence that it works. Nevertheless, it is likely to remain central to science and journals because there is no obvious alternative, and scientists and editors have a continuing belief in peer review. How odd that science should be rooted in belief.

Opening up peer review
At this point we at the BMJ thought that we would change direction dramatically and begin to open up the process. We hoped that increasing the accountability would improve the quality of review. We began by conducting a randomized trial of open review (meaning that the authors but not readers knew the identity of the reviewers) against traditional review.13 It had no effect on the quality of reviewers' opinions. They were neither better nor worse. We went ahead and introduced the system routinely on ethical grounds: such important judgements should be open and acountable unless there were compelling reasons why they could not be—and there were not.

Our next step was to conduct a trial of our current open system against a system whereby every document associated with peer review, together with the names of everybody involved, was posted on the BMJ's website when the paper was published. Once again this intervention had no effect on the quality of the opinion. We thus planned to make posting peer review documents the next stage in opening up our peer review process, but that has not yet happened—partly because the results of the trial have not yet been published and partly because this step required various technical developments.

The final step was, in my mind, to open up the whole process and conduct it in real time on the web in front of the eyes of anybody interested. Peer review would then be transformed from a black box into an open scientific discourse. Often I found the discourse around a study was a lot more interesting than the study itself. Now that I have left I am not sure if this system will be introduced.

The latter bit here is particularly interesting, because with the Covid-19 situation there's been a number of extremely strong critiques of papers emerging from "non-peer" sources. In other words, what's predicted in the article is really creating a very strong and useful resource for critiquing research. (Unfortunately, in most cases it looks like the establishment corruption & money-interest is overriding reasonable critique, but that wasn't apparent to most until last year.)

[Pat]

it's best to regard peer review as something like a sniff test. It can be biased and superficial, but at least a couple people who should know better gave it a passing grade. It's not so much a filter for qualify, but a gate to prevent pure garbage from getting through.

I'm not sure opening it up really helps. It's just going to lead to journalists jumping to conclusions even sooner.

[Zelen]

Being fat is harmful to you. But being fat is also harmful to other people: Source

We evaluated relationships between exhaled aerosol particle number and sex, age, and body mass index (BMI). No correlation was found with sex, while significant correlations were observed between exhaled aerosol, age, and BMI—and particularly BMI-years. We characterized each of the 146 individuals for whom we obtained age and BMI information by their age multiplied by their BMI, or by their BMI-years. We noted that half of the group (73 individuals) with lowest BMI-years (less than 650 BMI-years) exhaled significantly less aerosol than the half of the group (73 individuals) with highest BMI-years (above 650 BMI-years) (P < 0.015). The BMI-year results are shown in Fig. 2. We note that all volunteers of <26 y of age and all subjects under 22 BMI were low spreaders of exhaled bioaerosol.