Cont: Corona Virus Conspiracy Theories Part IV

[michaelsuede]

‘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.’

Correct, 75% is not 50%, but 54% is in fact better than 50%, so Marik is actually understating his performance.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Correct, 75% is not 50%, but 54% is in fact better than 50%, so Marik is actually understating his performance.

Nope. Not what it says. All of his claims have been shown to be bogus. It implies that he quit monitoring the patients used in his claim too early. and you have it extremely backwards. Originally he claimed 75% lower mortality rates. That did not hold up. So he tried to walk it back a bit, but there does not appear to be any support for that either.

 

[michaelsuede]

Nope. Not what it says. All of his claims have been shown to be bogus. It implies that he quit monitoring the patients used in his claim too early.

I'm not going to argue this point any further with you. You win. You are correct. That's what it clearly says. All of his claims are bogus.

 

[Darat]

That's correct. He went off the deep-end and treated patients with the off-label use of a drug because he found it reduced the mortality of his patients by 50%.

That's not allowed.

Oh, and that "rejected" paper was ultimately published. There was no malfeasance on Marik's part.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8415512/

The story about the JICM paper is equally ridiculous. The data on deaths was accurate when submitted, but the HOSPITAL asked the JCIM to make the paper recalculate the mortality in one section of the paper, after it had already been published, using long term follow-up data, which raised the mortality from 0 to 10%. Utterly absurd and unheard of for something like this to happen. The JICM refused to accept the author's data correction, and instead yanked the entire paper.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458892074510651405.html

Total nonsense.

For example I had Covid in November last year and was prescribed and took ivermectin as part of an ongoing UK based study into covid treatment. The idea that research into using ivermectin is not allowed and so on is a load of rubbish.

The only reason it wouldn't be used is if the properly controlled and statistically relevant studies show it doesn't help.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

But you don't have any anecdotal reports to support your statement that we don't know how many unreported deaths were caused by the vaccines.

In the absence of evidence, you implied that there was a lot of unobserved evidence. It's like the old joke about elephants hiding in trees. You never see them so they must be really good at hiding in trees.

 

[michaelsuede]

Total nonsense.

For example I had Covid in November last year and was prescribed and took ivermectin as part of an ongoing UK based study into covid treatment. The idea that research into using ivermectin is not allowed and so on is a load of rubbish.

The only reason it wouldn't be used is if the properly controlled and statistically relevant studies show it doesn't help.

Really?

So the FDA putting pressure on medical boards has absolutely nothing to do with it?

The fact that hospitals are being paid VAST sums of money to put people on remdesivir and ventilators by the feds has nothing to do with it?

The fact that the only drugs in the entire FDA approved formulary that doctors are presently being prohibited from prescribing off-label by hospitals happen to be COVID treatments?

Explain to me why a doctor can prescribe any other FDA approved drug off-label for any other condition except COVID. If what you are saying is true, why was Paul Marik suspended?

And I noticed you didn't say if the ivermectin you took worked. When I took it, it cleared my symptoms within 6 hours. The same is true of my friend, and both my parents.

 

[Resume]

<disinformationsnip>

There, much better.

 

[Resume]

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

Silenced, yet we hear their disinformation all the time.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

What a stupid assertion.

Quit lying to yourself.

Says the CT-er who constantly lies to himself about such fails as (snicker) Q and the (guffaw) Kraken.

The war on free discourse dangerous disinformation worsens gains steam daily.

Fixed.

You are on the wrong side.

As a disinformationist, it is you who is on the wrong side.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not going to argue this point any further with you. You win. You are correct. That's what it clearly says. All of his claims are bogus.

Wow! You are actually correct!

You should reread the article. It explains how his methodology failed and why his paper was retracted. And in case you did not know a retraction when it comes to peer reviewed publications is an admission by the publisher that they screwed up when they first published the story.

The publishers understood why his work failed. It appears that you may be running into some cognitive dissonance. That can happen when a cherished belief is shown to be wrong.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

But you don't have any anecdotal reports to support your statement that we don't know how many unreported deaths were caused by the vaccines.

In the absence of evidence, you implied that there was a lot of unobserved evidence. It's like the old joke about elephants hiding in trees. You never see them so they must be really good at hiding in trees.

Hang on a mo!

I thought it was custard that elephants hid in? Are you telling me the buggers hide in trees too? It's easy to avoid lakes of custard full of lurking elephants, but trees? There's loads of them around! I could be surrounded, even now.

 

[Resume]

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.

Disinformationist flails about in a frustrated attempt to demonstrate his new favorite fevered CT and another fail is added to his lengthy record.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really?

So the FDA putting pressure on medical boards has absolutely nothing to do with it?

The fact that hospitals are being paid VAST sums of money to put people on remdesivir and ventilators by the feds has nothing to do with it?

The fact that the only drugs in the entire FDA approved formulary that doctors are presently being prohibited from prescribing off-label by hospitals happen to be COVID treatments?

Explain to me why a doctor can prescribe any other FDA approved drug off-label for any other condition except COVID. If what you are saying is true, why was Paul Marik suspended?

And I noticed you didn't say if the ivermectin you took worked. When I took it, it cleared my symptoms within 6 hours. The same is true of my friend, and both my parents.

Now you are descending into conspiracy theory territory. Perhaps this thread should be moved.

And do you think that the FDA has a lot of influence in the UK?

 

[Planigale]

That's correct. He went off the deep-end and treated patients with the off-label use of a drug because he found it reduced the mortality of his patients by 50%.
That's not allowed.

Oh, and that "rejected" paper was ultimately published. There was no malfeasance on Marik's part.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8415512/

The story about the JICM paper is equally ridiculous. The data on deaths was accurate when submitted, but the HOSPITAL asked the JCIM to make the paper recalculate the mortality in one section of the paper, after it had already been published, using long term follow-up data, which raised the mortality from 0 to 10%. Utterly absurd and unheard of for something like this to happen. The JICM refused to accept the author's data correction, and instead yanked the entire paper.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1458892074510651405.html

But he can not have known this when he started to treat patients. The correct thing to have done was to recruit patients to large well run multicentre trials that would rapidly give an answer to the question.

Marik has a track record of publishing poor quality studies (non-randomised, non blinded) demonstrating substantial benefits to his current recipe de jour, which can then not be replicated in large randomised controlled trials. It is not simply the Ivermectin component that is dubious. He published results that no one really believed claiming the HAT (hydrocortisone ascorbic acid thiamine) protocol 'cured' sepsis reducing mortality from 40% to 8%. Subsequently well conducted trial have failed to show any impact on mortality of the combination or individual components. He then used this discredited protocol adding heparin and ivermectin to treat COVID. he again published a non-randomised study claiming huge effects. The steroid component in his protocol has been shown to be beneficial in well controlled studies for covid 19. large well controlled studies suggest the heparin component may be harmful in ventilated patients.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n487?int_source=trendmd&int_medium=cpc&int_campaign=usage-042019

 

[michaelsuede]

But he can not have known this when he started to treat patients. The correct thing to have done was to recruit patients to large well run multicentre trials that would rapidly give an answer to the question.

Marik has a track record of publishing poor quality studies (non-randomised, non blinded) demonstrating substantial benefits to his current recipe de jour, which can then not be replicated in large randomised controlled trials. It is not simply the Ivermectin component that is dubious. He published results that no one really believed claiming the HAT (hydrocortisone ascorbic acid thiamine) protocol 'cured' sepsis reducing mortality from 40% to 8%. Subsequently well conducted trial have failed to show any impact on mortality of the combination or individual components. He then used this discredited protocol adding heparin and ivermectin to treat COVID. he again published a non-randomised study claiming huge effects. The steroid component in his protocol has been shown to be beneficial in well controlled studies for covid 19. large well controlled studies suggest the heparin component may be harmful in ventilated patients.
https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n487?int_source=trendmd&int_medium=cpc&int_campaign=usage-042019

So your advice is that doctors should not publish any data on the efficacy of their protocols, and instead wait for someone to come along who has really deep pockets to fund a multi-center investigational trial on a generic drug that has no profit potential.

Great advice.

I should add that other's have found benefit with HAT therapy:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31469984/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32194058/

Marik argues the VITAMINS trial, which I assume you are referring to, started therapy too late to make a difference.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So your advice is that doctors should not publish any data on the efficacy of their protocols, and instead wait for someone to come along who has really deep pockets to fund a multi-center investigational trial on a generic drug that has no profit potential.

Great advice.

Nice strawman. His work is too questionable to merit publishing. He may even have <gasp!> lied.

 

[Resume]

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.

Disinformationists gonna disinform; it's what they do.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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

Knowing that all deaths are reported 'obfuscates'? How?
Actually, don't bother, You've no idea how. You're just dodging again, having -yet again- been caught out spinning yet another improbable yarn.

So we are told.

If you have any actual evidence, you could always present it, you know. Just once. Go on, try it. You might like it.

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.

Did she? I tried to find this...whatever it was. I found this:

During an appearance on Fox News Sunday, CDC director Rochelle Walensky failed to clarify how many of the 836,000 U.S. patients whose deaths were attributed to Covid in the last two years had underlying medical conditions.

“How many of the 836,000 deaths in the U.S. linked to Covid are from Covid or how many are with Covid but they had other co-morbidities. Do you have that breakdown?” anchor Bret Baier asked.

“Yes, of course, with Omicron we’re following that very carefully, our death registry takes a few weeks to collect and Omicron has been with us for just a few weeks but those data will be forthcoming,” Walensky replied.

Which is not what you claimed.
Then there's this:

Inaccurate: Director of the U.S. CDC Rochelle Walensky didn’t state that COVID-19 deaths had been over-counted. Healthcare providers are required to report any deaths occurring among people who received the COVID-19 vaccine. In some of these cases, although the patient tested positive for COVID-19, their death was caused by something else.

Worth noting that the source for this particular piece of rubbish was a known Bubbasource- Gateway Pundit.
So Bubba, were you just misquoting and/or misremembering some inaccurate rubbish, or is there another story here that you were referencing?
Again, it wouldn't kill you to link to your actual source.

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.

Why would she say, Bubba? Was she asked about it?
Oh, yeah, and the Great Barrington blah blah blah.

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.

Was she asked about them? No. So why would she say?
Now, these 920,000 signatories. Sounds impressive, right?
Well, actually not. Of those 920K, some 850,000 are 'concerned citizens'. In other words, paranoid morons.
Just under 16,000 describe themselves as medical & public health scientists, and a further 46,000 as medical practitioners. Moreover, only 211,000 of the entire total are from the US, meaning only a tiny fraction of Americans are in any way interested in this. (I'd give the breakdowns for other countries, but Bubba isn't really aware of the presence of this thing called 'other countries', so I won't bother).
Then there is the slight problem that the names of these signatories have not been released. Bubba, how do you know if these claimed medical professionals and scientists are who they say they are? Have you just taken this on faith? Surely not. We all know your deep commitment to solid factual research.
All of this is from their own website:
https://gbdeclaration.org/view-signatures/

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

Just to summarise your claim here: You think vaccines are killing people based on deaths that are unreported, which you therefore cannot know about, from a cause that no-one knows, including you.
Right. That's credible.

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.

No, you don't know. Your 'anecdotal reports' are the usual deceptive and dishonest disinformation.
Does the name Del Bigtree ring any bells?
https://www.usnews.com/news/health-...os-used-to-link-athlete-deaths-to-covid-shots

Bubba, do us all a favour. You hoover up all kinds of putrid crap, and regurgitate it on this forum. Just stop. Please. Take a moment to reflect, check your facts and stop this foolishness. Please.

 

[Resume]

<very respectful snip>

Bubba, do us all a favour. You hoover up all kinds of putrid crap, and regurgitate it on this forum. Just stop. Please. Take a moment to reflect, check your facts and stop this foolishness. Please.

Maybe he needs to stop consuming the propaganda that gulls him, and has a direct hand in the deaths of thousands of other credules in this pandemic, but he is probably too far down the rabbit hole to objectively assess his failed epistomology.

 

[sackett]

In Ruthenian country dialect (quite different from "town" Ruthenian), marika-marika is an echoic term for the sound ducks make. Coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[carlitos]

it's the sound .... of silenced

ETA - An "abbreviated list" of podcast appearances by Dr. Robert Malone