Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[Steve]

How are they wrong again?

I have provided exactly as much evidence for my comments as you have for:

"Malpractice these days is considered doing anything that costs the hospital money, like having half the mortality of your peers while treating with drugs that aren't reimbursed by the federal government.

"Fraudulent papers" these days are considered any paper that shows a benefit to a repurposed drug that interferes with the profitability of on-patent drugs and the hospital getting reimbursed substantially by the federal government for the administration of such drugs."

If you wish to start including supporting evidence for ones statements you go first.

 

[michaelsuede]

I have provided exactly as much evidence for my comments as you have for:

"Malpractice these days is considered doing anything that costs the hospital money, like having half the mortality of your peers while treating with drugs that aren't reimbursed by the federal government.

"Fraudulent papers" these days are considered any paper that shows a benefit to a repurposed drug that interferes with the profitability of on-patent drugs and the hospital getting reimbursed substantially by the federal government for the administration of such drugs."

If you wish to start including supporting evidence for ones statements you go first.

I thought I did include supporting evidence.

Dr. Marik wasn't fired over the paper, he was fired because he was effectively treating patients in a way the hospital didn't agree with. The hospital ordered him to use remdesivir and vents, that's all he was allowed to use. Coincidentally, the hospital is reimbursed 20% of the entire hospital bill by the feds for remdesivir, and there is another bonus for putting them on a vent.

Of the "fraudulent papers", one was ultimately published after removing legitimately used early data that was found to be unreliable through no fault of the authors, and the other was retracted even though the retraction statement agrees the data was correctly represented in the paper, but demanded the inclusion of follow up data that occurred after the paper's stated end date, which ultimately made no difference to the conclusions of the paper, since it was a recommendation paper and the data after correction would still show half the mortality rate of other facilities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I thought I did include supporting evidence.

Dr. Marik wasn't fired over the paper, he was fired because he was effectively treating patients in a way the hospital didn't agree with. The hospital ordered him to use remdesivir and vents, that's all he was allowed to use. Coincidentally, the hospital is reimbursed 20% of the entire hospital bill by the feds for remdesivir, and there is another bonus for putting them on a vent.

Of the "fraudulent papers", one was ultimately published after removing legitimately used early data that was found to be unreliable through no fault of the authors, and the other was retracted even though the retraction statement agrees the data was correctly represented in the paper, but demanded the inclusion of follow up data that occurred after the paper's stated end date, which ultimately made no difference to the conclusions of the paper, since it was a recommendation paper and the data after correction would still show half the mortality rate of other facilities.

You need to try to separate one's claims from the facts. He claims to have a 50% lower mortality rate, but that appears to have been refuted. If I was a doctor that chose who to treat it would be easy to lower my mortality rate when it came to Covid19. One would only need to concentrate on younger patients or those without preexisting conditions that makes one more likely to die from Covid19.

You should see if you can find some reliable independent sources that confirm his claims. Don't believe someone just because they say what you want them to say.

 

[carlitos]

Glysophate is a herbicide, not a fertilizer. It is a killer, not an enrichment. It only "increases" crop production by way of removing unwanted competition.

Thank you.

This is probably why farmers don't consult with Electrical Engineering PhDs when they plant.

 

[michaelsuede]

You need to try to separate one's claims from the facts. He claims to have a 50% lower mortality rate, but that appears to have been refuted.

Where?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where?

You should have read the Wiki article. Though much besmirched Wikipedia is quite reliable since if anyone screws up those parts of articles can be edited. There were links provided. But this article from Retraction Watch explains why and how his claims were refuted:

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11...r-by-pierre-kory-retracted-for-flawed-results

 

[Bubba]

But reporting deaths is compulsory. All deaths are reported

Thats was not the point at all. But it obfuscates nicely. Well done.

whether from a vaccine adverse event or from flu or from heart attacks.

So we are told.

Not vaccine related, but as an example:
CDC Walensky just admitted "deaths with covid" were wrongly counted with "deaths by covid". How many thousands? She didnt say. How did that fake data contribute to the lockdown and other insanity, including mass injections, all of which were protested (in writing) (great barrington declaration on covid policy)

She didnt say.

Did she know about Fauci's emails plotting to discredit the thousands of doctors and other (920K lately) signers of the Great Barrington Declaration?

She didnt say.

The cause of death is also reported.

How often is that wrong? (right, you cannot know) Especially where no one is looking for an unsuspected cause.

So the number of deaths from vaccine adverse reaction is known.

How reassuring. (I dont think so.)


How many athletes have collapsed and died on the field mid-game due to their recent injections? We dont know yet. Anecdotal reports claim a rising number.

 

[michaelsuede]

You should have read the Wiki article. Though much besmirched Wikipedia is quite reliable since if anyone screws up those parts of articles can be edited. There were links provided. But this article from Retraction Watch explains why and how his claims were refuted:

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11...r-by-pierre-kory-retracted-for-flawed-results

You'll have to quote exactly where in that article you linked it says Marik didn't actually have a 50% lower mortality rate, because I'm not seeing it.

In fact, if you look at the retraction notice, it says other hospitals had 15.6% to 32% mortality, Kory says the average is 23%, so let's see that would be a

|23 - 10.5|/23 = 12.5/23 = 0.54347826086957 = 54.347826086957%

54% decrease in mortality using the newly adjusted data.

 

[Bubba]

What I am starting to hate most about these grifters is how much they absolutely will not shut up about being silenced. They go on for 3 hours at a time on the most-listened-to podcast in the world and spend half the time telling us just how "censored" they are.

Thats just wishful hogwash.


The audience of the most listened to podcast counts for little compared to all MSM, FB, Twitter, etc combined.

Plus, Malone is just one of the thousands of doctors and other health care professionals silenced by those media.


Quit lying to yourself.

The war on free discourse worsens daily. You are on the wrong side.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sounds about right.

Malpractice these days is considered doing anything that costs the hospital money, like having half the mortality of your peers while treating with drugs that aren't reimbursed by the federal government. ...

Give me a break!

Malpractice is determined in a court. Sometimes insurance companies settle invalid malpractice claims because going to court costs more money than paying out the claim. I can't remember if there is a clause in my malpractice that gives the insurer the right to settle the claim against my will, but it is common practice.

It doesn't have **** to do with the hospital except they are often sued along with the healthcare provider because the hospitals have deeper pockets.


On the other hand, your "peer reviewed" link however is very interesting, actually very compelling. I see it's from May-June 2021. If valid it shows how resistant the healthcare community is to changing an established position.

I'm concerned all the research is from countries outside of the 'Western medicine' realm. But beyond that, it looks like it might be time to revisit ivermectin use in COVID.
Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19


It took 10 years for the medical community to accept Dr Snow's impeccable evidence that cholera bacteria and not 'miasma' was the cause of the 1800s London epidemic. Removing the Broad St Pump handle is a fascinating story.

Along the same line in modern times, it took about that long for the medical community to accept that H-pilori and not stress induced stomach acidity was the cause of gastric ulcers. And once it was shown that topical acyclovir did not improve herpes infections, there was a following delay accepting that oral acyclovir did.


Some of your beliefs like the above about malpractice make it easy to dismiss something like this. But those are some very extensive and compelling meta-analyses.
Since the paper was published 7 months ago, I shall switch to 'we really should reevaluate ivermectin use in COVID' and await the onslaught in this thread of counter evidence before switching to: yeah, time to change horses.



For now, color me surprised.

 

[bruto]

What I am starting to hate most about these grifters is how much they absolutely will not shut up about being silenced. They go on for 3 hours at a time on the most-listened-to podcast in the world and spend half the time telling us just how "censored" they are.

You ruthless canceller, we members of the disempowered white Christian minority must shout to be heard!

 

[abaddon]

Thats just wishful hogwash.


The audience of the most listened to podcast counts for little compared to all MSM, FB, Twitter, etc combined.

Plus, Malone is just one of the thousands of doctors and other health care professionals silenced by those media.


Quit lying to yourself.

The war on free discourse worsens daily. You are on the wrong side.

Not part of those. so no idea what you are on about.

 

[eerok]

How many athletes have collapsed and died on the field mid-game due to their recent injections? We dont know yet. Anecdotal reports claim a rising number.

If only there were a reliable methodology to investigate questions like this, rather than depending on burbling randos on sketchy blogs.

You've rejected science, so that's off the table.

 

[michaelsuede]

Malpractice is determined in a court. Sometimes insurance companies settle invalid malpractice claims because going to court costs more money than paying out the claim. I can't remember if there is a clause in my malpractice that gives the insurer the right to settle the claim against my will, but it is common practice.

It doesn't have **** to do with the hospital except they are often sued along with the healthcare provider because the hospitals have deeper pockets.

Well, if that were true, Paul Marik would still have a job.

He hasn't been sued by anyone for malpractice, yet the hospital still fired him for what it considered be the malpractice of not going along with their non-treatment protocol. Paul Marik still has a mark against him in a national database of doctors over this.

 

[Bubba]

If only there were a reliable methodology to investigate questions like this, rather than depending on burbling randos on sketchy blogs.

You've rejected science, so that's off the table.

Itchy trigger finger?

The point was 'anecdotal reports'.

Sometimes they add to science, sometimes not. I will let you know if that happens, or not. There are people collecting raw data, in case you did not know.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You should have read the Wiki article. Though much besmirched Wikipedia is quite reliable since if anyone screws up those parts of articles can be edited. There were links provided. But this article from Retraction Watch explains why and how his claims were refuted:

https://retractionwatch.com/2021/11...r-by-pierre-kory-retracted-for-flawed-results

I've looked at this list of retractions and I don't see anything addressing the meta-analyses reviews.

It would be very convenient and relieving to find said meta-analyses all have flaws. Have you looked at the link in my above post (also linked to in michael's post)?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, if that were true, Paul Marik would still have a job.

He hasn't been sued by anyone for malpractice, yet the hospital still fired him for what it considered be the malpractice of not going along with their non-treatment protocol. Paul Marik still has a mark against him in a national database of doctors over this.

I'm not going to waste time on this argument.

IMO, if you want people to seriously consider the link on ivermectin actually working you'll concentrate on that.

 

[michaelsuede]

I've looked at this list of retractions and I don't see anything addressing the meta-analyses reviews.

It would be very convenient and relieving to find said meta-analyses all have flaws. Have you looked at the link in my above post (also linked to in michael's post)?

Don't forget about this one.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Aaaaah, Bubba, any chance of you addressing the flaws in the work of Zelenko yet? I pointed out many things wrong with one of his "papers" ages ago and asked what you made of that, but you've not responded. And yet you have repeatedly trumpeted Zelenko as a heroic truth-teller or some such nonsense. Why is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You'll have to quote exactly where in that article you linked it says Marik didn't actually have a 50% lower mortality rate, because I'm not seeing it.

In fact, if you look at the retraction notice, it says other hospitals had 15.6% to 32% mortality, Kory says the average is 23%, so let's see that would be a

|23 - 10.5|/23 = 12.5/23 = 0.54347826086957 = 54.347826086957%

54% decrease in mortality using the newly adjusted data.

‘Apparently […] census and mortality counts from hospital reports [were used] to calculate a mortality rate, but in so doing counted some patients in the denominator but not in the numerator because they died after July 20, 2020, the reported end date of the study. This would be an incorrect calculation of a hospital mortality rate, but might explain the incorrect number of 6.1% in Table 2. Using this incorrect mortality rate to compare with the published reports and claim a “75% absolute risk reduction” is thus an incorrect conclusion regardless of which mortality rate is used.’