Big Tech, the Death of Medicine, Censorship, and Pregnancy Loss; or, How Covid Ruins Everything

 

I just got a YouTube notification that a physician I follow, Suneel Dhand, who posted a new video titled “Dr. Peter Doshi Capitol Hill video REMOVED by YouTube.” I had watched the referenced video featuring Dr. Doshi, in which he pointed out the inconsistencies in the arguments used for the current push for vaccine and mask mandates.

Dr. Dhand had shown Dr. Doshi’s video in the context of his own video raising similar concerns. Dr. Dhand is by no means “antivaxx,” but favors a multifaceted approach towards treating and preventing Covid that does not coincide with the one-size-fits-all vaccine or nothing. Dhand has also been a strong proponent of ongoing discussions in the name of scientific rigor, that there is no “settled science.”

To blindly follow what a few people are saying would fly in the face of the most basic of scientific and medical reasoning. However, YouTube removed his video stating it violated community standards. He appealed its removal and received word that they would not budge from their position.

This is one of many videos that has been struck for not following the party line. YouTube is censoring scientists and physicians acting in good faith. I fully understand that YouTube as a private company can do whatever it wants. It does fall under the umbrella of big tech companies that are using their social media presence to censor free speech, and it now extends to censoring genuine scientific debate. Do these companies fall under the heading of monopolies? Do we have any ground to stand on to step in and demand they uphold freedom of speech?

Debate and discussion have been foundational to science and medicine since they became fields of study. It is how these fields grow and develop, through constant reexamination. Instead, we’re seeing science shut down in favor of a narrative that has been chosen by a few. The doctors raising questions about Covid treatments, vaccines, and masking are being silenced regardless of their political bent.

Dr. Vinay Prasad, a self-avowed Progressive, has come out loudly against the label of “misinformation” for anything that doesn’t support the vaccine or nothing position. In fact, after listening to Prasad speak in his videos, one starts to wonder if he really is as progressive as he claims. I’m heartened to see physicians speaking out against censorship and trying to uphold the critical thinking that has been a hallmark of medicine for centuries. I am heartened because my own experience with the physicians I work with has been so disheartening.

When Covid first hit, my hospital, like so many others, shut down elective surgeries and minimized inpatient hospitalization in an effort to stop the spread and keep beds open for the flux of Covid patients that must be on the horizon. My service, cardiothoracic surgery, only did elective cases for lung cancer patients and those with critical heart disease. We went from having 30+ patients on our list at any given time to three or four. The five of us advanced practice providers (PAs and NPs) were repurposed temporarily, and I was sent to manage patients in the Covid ICU alongside our colleagues in critical care and pulmonology. This was a brief sojourn of a few weeks, and we were back to our normal service.

Months later, no longer consistently caring for Covid patients, I asked a few of my colleagues in critical care if they had read any of the literature about Ivermectin, which had just come out as a possible cheap and safe treatment. I was told, “the CDC doesn’t endorse it, so we won’t consider it.” Only one critical care physician had taken the time to read the available literature. I was shocked that the physicians I worked so closely with and trusted would choose to not even read the studies to decide for themselves.

As the months went on, it became increasingly clear that the majority of doctors I work with are not reviewing the literature themselves, but rather going along with whatever the CDC and their colleges/associations say. My favorite doctor, a strong conservative normally suspicious of anything that smacks of collectivism or socialism, told me during surgery one day that I just needed to get the vaccine because “everyone is going to mandate it, and you won’t be able to go anywhere or do anything without being vaccinated, so you might as well get it.” He said this in July after the vaccine mandate was announced at hospitals across my state. I have not gotten the vaccine because I have had Covid, and natural immunity is a thing, despite what the CDC says. I have seen healthy doctors in their thirties lining up to get their Pfizer vaccines and subsequent boosters, despite the fact that Covid has a less than 1% mortality rate for that demographic. I’ve also seen doctors who had native infection roll their sleeves up to get the vaccine afterward.

While we are being beaten over the head to get everyone and their dog vaccinated, only a small group of physicians are talking about risk stratification and mitigation. When the delta strain took over, the headlines in my in-basket from medical email blasts read “Delta variant more likely to kill those under the age of 50” and “Covid deaths amongst young people highlight need to get vaccinated.” Not working in the Covid ICU consistently anymore, I was unsure about these claims. But I started hearing rumblings about the risk factors these young people had that made them susceptible to death from Covid.

I was sitting in the critical care NP office one day when one of my friends in critical care came in to call one of the large tertiary hospitals, trying to see if they would accept the transfer for a 35-year-old woman who was in the Covid ICU maxed out on her ventilator settings and getting worse. “Hi, I’ve got a 35-year-old lady with Covid. She completely maxed out on the vent, and her sats are continuing to drop and she’s increasingly difficult to oxygenate. I was wondering if you guys would be open to putting her on ECMO? She’s pretty healthy, just has diabetes and hypertension … her BMI? 45.”

Ah, there it is. My coworkers and I had noted that the young patients with Covid we were putting on ECMO in a last-ditch effort to save their lives were all very overweight. Not just overweight, but morbidly obese. A five-foot, six-inch woman would have to weigh 250 lbs to reach a BMI of 40. When I surveyed nurses and NPs in the Covid units, they all said the young people that are dying from Covid all have BMIs over 40, and often also have diabetes and hypertension, or other comorbidities.

No one is talking about this. One’s weight, blood sugar, and blood pressure are all things that can be controlled and modified. A study also showed that 97% of those who died from Covid were deficient in vitamin D. Again, something that can be addressed. But no one will talk about these things. Instead, we have vaccine mandates and a singular focus on the vaccines, even though you can still catch and spread Covid after being vaccinated.

The blind following of whatever the CDC says, the abandonment of critical thinking, and the lack of a multifaceted approach to treatment and prevention have almost destroyed my faith in the medical community. In fact, I’m almost to the point of wanting to leave. I’m not blind to the dangers of Covid, not in the least. I experienced a stillbirth in February at 33 weeks gestation. It was caused by a combination of tight nuchal cord and clot in 50% of the placenta leading to placental insufficiency. I was worked up for clotting disorders after I delivered my son, and have none. We do know, however, that Covid has a significant embolic aspect to it. At the time, I read one study that showed an increase in clots in the placentas and umbilical cords of women that had Covid during pregnancy. Even though we know this, OB/GYNs are not treating Covid-positive pregnant women with full or even partial anticoagulation. Of course, I’ll never know, but I wonder if my son would be alive today if my Covid infection had been treated differently.

Next week, Mustangman and I fly back to Portland to spend the first holiday with his family since we moved cross-country. We wanted to get together with our good friends while we’re there. The first question they asked was if we were vaccinated. I told them that Mustangman is, and I had Covid. They will only get together with us if we can find a place that has outdoor heated dining because of my unvaccinated status. They do not believe that natural immunity is a thing when it comes to Covid. We are unsure if we will be able to see our friends. Covid ruins everything.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 141 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    How is the Ricochet staff, for instance, supposed to check every comment before it goes live to ensure it isn’t libelous?

    If Ricochet wants to be a ‘publisher,’ then they’ll have to figure that one out.

    If they want to be a ‘platform,’ then they enjoy those protections.

    Pick one. The Publisher/Platform mix doesn’t work well.

    How could a site with millions of members do it?

    One way is that they employ “ignore” and “block” features so that users can create their desired experience.

    Ricochet might want to consider that.

    • #121
  2. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    Sandy (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    Masks are unpopular- but the truth isn’t decided by a majority of votes on a website

    I would go along with the idea of masks if people wore them correctly, but they don’t. Never have. Heck, it is an issue with professional healthcare workers. Ask anybody that has worked in and around any OR (@ vicrylcontessa). Therefore, no, masks are not effective. It is just all theater.

    To quote GK- if anything is worth doing, it is worth doing badly….But it would certainly be better if people’s masking techniques were better (and those neck gaiter masks are a joke). I do not write to support mandates but to push back against misinformation. There is way too much belief in conspiracy.

    One doesn’t have to charge conspiracy to notice that masks have promoted fear and continue to do so, and that this in turn has led to some very bad consequences. It isn’t so much COVID that ruins everything but the fear of it. How different might have been the result had we promoted a simple, cheap prophylaxis like vitamin D is suggested by the results of a new meta-study from Germany. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/13/10/3596

    This week, the Media is grabbing onto the reports that the people in Africa are unaffected by COVID. Many news commentators are promoting the meme that “No one, even experts, can understand why this is the case.”

    Of course there are many reasons for the lack of a COVID effect in Africa. Those nations are flooded with sunlight on an almost year round basis. So everyone receives a lot of Vit D. Plus the overall median age range in Africa is much lower in terms of numbers of people under 40 years. However comparisons of Africans over 60 with Americans over 60 shows a huge disparity between outcomes, with America being the most punished by both cases and deaths.

    In African nations where HCQ is sold freely and cheaply over the counter, there are low incidences of COVID cases and a corresponding small number of fatalities. Over 200 studies show the efficacy of HCQ. (Only in America, with our corrupted Pharma-controlled labs are reports on HCQ likely to indicate it is not beneficial.)

    Ivermectin was heavily promoted in India in all but two states, Karala and Tamil, and in every state where it was promoted, COVID cases and fatalities became almost non-existant.

    However if the pro-vax “experts” get their way in those states, COV cases will rise. This week saw the prime minister of Ireland being interviewed on CNN. In Ireland, 95% of the population has been vaxxed. Yet the rise in COVID cases is off the charts. (Predictably, the 5% of the Irish who are not vaxxed are being blamed! Which is a conclusion any logically thinking person must reject.)

    • #122
  3. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    Western Chauvinist (View Comment):

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    Vicryl Contessa: I fully understand that YouTube as a private company can do whatever it wants. It does fall under the umbrella of big tech companies that are using their social media presence to censor free speech, and it now extends to censoring genuine scientific debate. Do these companies fall under the heading of monopolies? Do we have any ground to stand on to step in and demand they uphold freedom of speech?

    Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter are terrible in how they give one side free reign and stifle the other side. But my answer is always No when someone suggests that government should make them behave fairly. Sure, maybe a future Attorney General Ted Cruz would make sure they are giving equal access to the left and the right, but then when the wheel turns and we have Attorney General Elizabeth Warren or Keith Ellison, we will rue the day that we gave the U.S. government the authority to rule over content in private companies. Government will make it worse, not better.

    Yes, I also don’t want the government running them, or supervising them. Either gives the government too much power.

    But I’d be happy to see them broken up, on the grounds that they represent threats to our national security.

    Breaking them up isn’t giving government too much authority? 

    I didn’t say “authority.” I said “power,” and I chose that word for a reason.

    The Big Tech companies have a specific kind of power, the ability to subtly or dramatically shape the information available to billions of people. They can do it on a whim, they can do it without our knowledge, and they can do it as blatantly as they wish to, for example, influence the outcome of an election.

    That’s power. Right now, that power is in the hands of a handful of men. I don’t want them to have that power; we’ve already seen how they abuse it. But I don’t want the government to have that power, either. So I don’t want the government to simply regulate and control these institutions. That’s too dangerous, too tempting a tool to use to impose the next COVID or climate change consensus.

    Break them up, so that no one has that power.

    • #123
  4. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Sandy (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    This week, the Media is grabbing onto the reports that the people in Africa are unaffected by COVID. Many news commentators are promoting the meme that “No one, even experts, can understand why this is the case.”

    Of course there are many reasons for the lack of a COVID effect in Africa. Those nations are flooded with sunlight on an almost year round basis. So everyone receives a lot of Vit D. Plus the overall median age range in Africa is much lower in terms of numbers of people under 40 years. However comparisons of Africans over 60 with Americans over 60 shows a huge disparity between outcomes, with America being the most punished by both cases and deaths.

    In African nations where HCQ is sold freely and cheaply over the counter, there are low incidences of COVID cases and a corresponding small number of fatalities. Over 200 studies show the efficacy of HCQ. (Only in America, with our corrupted Pharma-controlled labs are reports on HCQ likely to indicate it is not beneficial.)

    Ivermectin was heavily promoted in India in all but two states, Karala and Tamil, and in every state where it was promoted, COVID cases and fatalities became almost non-existant.

    However if the pro-vax “experts” get their way in those states, COV cases will rise. This week saw the prime minister of Ireland being interviewed on CNN. In Ireland, 95% of the population has been vaxxed. Yet the rise in COVID cases is off the charts. (Predictably, the 5% of the Irish who are not vaxxed are being blamed! Which is a conclusion any logically thinking person must reject.)

    Ivermectin & HCQ probably have almost nothing to do with it (particularly HCQ which doesn’t work- the jury isn’t fully in for ivermectin). HCQ failed to protect the prince of plaquenil, Dr Kory as well as his daughter.

    1)Africa has poor public health systems so their data is not very worthwhile- for instance Africa did not realize it had HIV infections for 60 years. People were dying of AIDS in Africa for decades before anyone noticed it-and that was only after it turned up in the 1st world. Many African countries do not report nor collect accurate numbers-for example in South Africa, the number of excess natural deaths reported between 6 May and 28 July exceeded its official COVID-19 death toll by a factor of four to one-did they all slip on banana peels?. Tanzania has denied the virus exists at all-it is a satanic myth!- altho their tune is changing now that their president has reportedly died from COVID.

    2) Climate is big factor – the virus spreads best in lower temperatures & humidity- a rare condition in much of Africa.  They do not need to button up their houses due to weather-they try to enhance ventilation to cool & dry things-more natural airflow-less viral load in the air

    3)Age- Africa is younger & has few nursing homes.

    4) Some wonder if the existence of corona viruses causing colds maybe more common in Africa and thereby enable the development of natural immunity.(Sounds like spitballing since I am not aware of any data consistent with this hypothesis).

    • #124
  5. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    How is the Ricochet staff, for instance, supposed to check every comment before it goes live to ensure it isn’t libelous?

    If Ricochet wants to be a ‘publisher,’ then they’ll have to figure that one one.

    If they want to be a ‘platform,’ then they enjoy those protections.

    Pick one. The Publisher/Platform mix doesn’t work well.

    How could a site with millions of members do it?

    One way is that they employ “ignore” and “block” features so that users can create their desired experience.

    Ricochet might want to consider that.

    Yes, and…. the libertarian view goes both ways. I understand the danger of legislating content, but I also understand the danger of limiting liability for some that everyone else is subject to fully. It’s difficult to keep a platform with millions of posts minimally clean? Yeah, sure, but not my problem. Being censored for ideas is my problem. Should be the platform’s problem too.

    So either platforms get sued into oblivion or they devolve into a sewer. Is that true? Ricochet works so well because whatever standards that are enforced are primarily surrounding vulgarity, not ideas. No swearing. No nudity. Ricochet benefits from some heavy self selection – it’s unlikely that we’re going to face constant disagreement over what is vulgar and what is not. Not so on YouTube or Twitter.

    Maybe the days of free platforms are over. Seems like some minimal skin in the game could go a long way. Maybe the expectation of standards policing is unreasonable; maybe block and ignore functions are the solution as Drew says.

    • #125
  6. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    MiMac (View Comment):
    MiMac @MiMac 5 Minutes Ago

    MiMac, Mark Camp has issued you a challenge at

    If You Believe that Covid Vaccines are Safe, What Do You Believe Might Explain These Death Rates?

    • #126
  7. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):
    I think any online forum that doesn’t have any ground rules other than it cannot be illegal content would turn into a sewer.  What if someone has a forum for Christians and anyone can join and spew as much hatred as they want towards Christians? 

    I’m not really a Christian, but I’m pretty close.  I don’t really care how much hatred people spew at me.  As they say “Sticks and stones…”

    • #127
  8. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Maybe the days of free platforms are over. Seems like some minimal skin in the game could go a long way.

    I think this is true. I’m not sure that such platforms were ever a workable business model. (Remember, if it’s free, you’re not the customer, you’re the commodity.) You either need a complete virtual public square where everything is allowed (and the policing is left up to the “community”), or you declare yourself a publisher with strict enforcement of what gets published.

    • #128
  9. MiMac Thatcher
    MiMac
    @MiMac

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    MiMac @ MiMac 5 Minutes Ago

    MiMac, Mark Camp has issued you a challenge at

    If You Believe that Covid Vaccines are Safe, What Do You Believe Might Explain These Death Rates?

    Challenge accepted:

    here is the data but adjusted for time-which Berenson doesn’t:

    VACCINE STATUS.                     COVID DEATHS.      ALL DEATHS.    (deaths per 100,000)

    unvaccinated.                                      849.7                       2,187.1

    vaccinated >21d post 2nd dose.         26.2                          783.6

    Source: Office for National Statistics – Public Health Data Asset, National Immunisation Management Service

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand24september2021

    Additionally, the another BIG problem with Berenson’s data is he does not adjust for the baseline health of the 2 populations-the vaccines were given 1st to those with the worst preexisting co-morbidities–  transplant recipients, cancer patients etc. The early waves of the vaccinated (ie those with the most time in the database and hence the most influence on the data) are SYSTEMATICALLY less healthy than the general population. Therefore, the early vaccinated people SHOULD die at a much higher rate than the unvaccinated from other causes-not less as the data shows.

    The two groups -vaxxed and unvaxxed are not the same initially nor stable over time-so adjustments have to be made rather than comparing crude figures. The vaxxed group was sicker and OLDER (he looks at <60- but the vaxxed group will remain older over the short time observed b/c they are vaxxxed in order of decreasing age-ie 50-60 1st , then 40-50 etc).

    • #129
  10. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    MiMac (View Comment):

    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill (View Comment):

    Sandy (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Blondie (View Comment):

    This week, the Media is grabbing onto the reports that the people in Africa are unaffected by COVID. Many news commentators are promoting the meme that “No one, even experts, can understand why this is the case.”

    Of course there are many reasons for the lack of a COVID effect in Africa. Those nations are flooded with sunlight on an almost year round basis. So everyone receives a lot of Vit D. Plus the overall median age range in Africa is much lower in terms of numbers of people under 40 years. However comparisons of Africans over 60 with Americans over 60 shows a huge disparity between outcomes, with America being the most punished by both cases and deaths.

    In African nations where HCQ is sold freely and cheaply over the counter, there are low incidences of COVID cases and a corresponding small number of fatalities. Over 200 studies show the efficacy of HCQ. (Only in America, with our corrupted Pharma-controlled labs are reports on HCQ likely to indicate it is not beneficial.)

    Ivermectin was heavily promoted in India in all but two states, Karala and Tamil, and in every state where it was promoted, COVID cases and fatalities became almost non-existant.

    However if the pro-vax “experts” get their way in those states, COV cases will rise.

    Ivermectin & HCQ probably have almost nothing to do with it (particularly HCQ which doesn’t work- the jury isn’t fully in for ivermectin). HCQ failed to protect the prince of plaquenil, Dr Kory as well as his daughter.

    SNIP

    2) Climate is big factor – the virus spreads best in lower temperatures & humidity- a rare condition in much of Africa. They do not need to button up their houses due to weather-they try to enhance ventilation to cool & dry things-more natural airflow-less viral load in the air

    3)Age- Africa is younger & has few nursing homes.

    4) Some wonder if the existence of corona viruses causing colds maybe more common in Africa and thereby enable the development of natural immunity.(Sounds like spitballing since I am not aware of any data consistent with this hypothesis).

    Two hundred studies show the safety and efficacy of HCQ and were done by experts in their field who live outside the USA and are not “encouraged” to slant their findings to keep their jobs or pensions show HCQ as working.

    HCQ and similar have also been prescribed for over five decades for Americans – even pregnant Americans – who traveled to malaria-infested areas, and for lupus more recently.

    As does all the “in the field” work by the America’s Frontline Doctors, the Bakersfield doctors, Peter McCullough with ivermectin, and many others.

    Then there is the “trusted”  word of our corrupted agency officials & the studies they fund. And against the word of MiMac.

    My money is not on the latter, but the former.

    • #130
  11. CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill Coolidge
    CarolJoy, Not So Easy To Kill
    @CarolJoy

    @mimac

    The lies we have been told – why would anyone continue to believe anything out of Big Pharma-controlled CDC, NIH, or the lips of Supreme Prince of Darkness Fauci?

    https://twitter.com/i/status/1462110616378880009

    • #131
  12. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Ed G. (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf (View Comment):

    Randy Weivoda (View Comment):

    How is the Ricochet staff, for instance, supposed to check every comment before it goes live to ensure it isn’t libelous?

    If Ricochet wants to be a ‘publisher,’ then they’ll have to figure that one one.

    If they want to be a ‘platform,’ then they enjoy those protections.

    Pick one. The Publisher/Platform mix doesn’t work well.

    How could a site with millions of members do it?

    One way is that they employ “ignore” and “block” features so that users can create their desired experience.

    Ricochet might want to consider that.

    Yes, and…. the libertarian view goes both ways. I understand the danger of legislating content, but I also understand the danger of limiting liability for some that everyone else is subject to fully. It’s difficult to keep a platform with do that with millions of posts minimally clean? Yeah, sure, but not my problem. Being censored for ideas is my problem. Should be the p;atform’s problem too.

    So either platforms get sued into oblivion or they devolve into a sewer. Is that true? Ricochet works so well because whatever standards that are enforced are primarily surrounding vulgarity, not ideas. No swearing. No nudity. Ricochet benefits from some heavy self selection – it’s unlikely that we’re going to face constant disagreement over what is vulgar and what is not. Not so on YouTube or Twitter.

    Maybe the days of free platforms are over. Seems like some minimal skin in the game could go a long way. Maybe the expectation of standards policing is unreasonable; maybe block and ignore functions are the solution as Drew says.

    This. If Facebook and Twitter and YouTube (not already sewers???) were held to the standards of publishers, maybe they’d spend more time monitoring actual filth and violent rhetoric than conservative opinion. . .

    • #132
  13. Ed G. Inactive
    Ed G.
    @EdG

    One of the appealing things about the social network platforms was the pure meritocracy that developed. Quality rises to the top eventually via word of mouth and voting with likes, follows, and views. Those don’t lie. Way back when, this system had room to breathe and develop; true, one often needs to wade through crap and mediocrity to find the gems. Sure bubbles form and self perpetuate. The platform ripened and has started showing signs of rot. Just like every other platform including broadcast and cable and radio. Etc.

    However, the average audience has average tastes. Quality isn’t the only thing that rises to the top based on popularity (hello Kardashian family!). Also, sometime the audience really doesn’t know what it wants, or the audience doesn’t know that it wants something that it might not choose based on the surface.

    Personally, I’m a fan of some curation. I don’t have unlimited time to consume content, and I appreciate some discerning judgement helping point me to good content and avoiding crap. Of course we know that curation and gatekeeping can go terribly wrong and can be hard to force a course correction on the curators.

    So how do we get to the sweet spot, a semi curated platform that also allows for ground up bootstrap popularity? I can tolerate some minimum level of CoC but in the form of content warnings or age restrictions; I am certainly onboard advertisers having some degree of say over content they don’t want to be associated with; certainly users being able to control what comes across their stream (yes, at teh risk of balkanization bubble forming).

    • #133
  14. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    MiMac (View Comment):

    Flicker (View Comment):

    MiMac (View Comment):
    MiMac @ MiMac 5 Minutes Ago

    MiMac, Mark Camp has issued you a challenge at

    If You Believe that Covid Vaccines are Safe, What Do You Believe Might Explain These Death Rates?

    Challenge accepted:

    here is the data but adjusted for time-which Berenson doesn’t:

    VACCINE STATUS. COVID DEATHS. ALL DEATHS. (deaths per 100,000)

    unvaccinated. 849.7 2,187.1

    vaccinated >21d post 2nd dose. 26.2 783.6

    Source: Office for National Statistics – Public Health Data Asset, National Immunisation Management Service

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/deathsinvolvingcovid19byvaccinationstatusengland/deathsoccurringbetween2januaryand24september2021

    Additionally, the another BIG problem with Berenson’s data is he does not adjust for the baseline health of the 2 populations-the vaccines were given 1st to those with the worst preexisting co-morbidities– transplant recipients, cancer patients etc. The early waves of the vaccinated (ie those with the most time in the database and hence the most influence on the data) are SYSTEMATICALLY less healthy than the general population. Therefore, the early vaccinated people SHOULD die at a much higher rate than the unvaccinated from other causes-not less as the data shows.

    The two groups -vaxxed and unvaxxed are not the same initially nor stable over time-so adjustments have to be made rather than comparing crude figures. The vaxxed group was sicker and OLDER (he looks at <60- but the vaxxed group will remain older over the short time observed b/c they are vaxxxed in order of decreasing age-ie 50-60 1st , then 40-50 etc).

    I think Mark wanted this commented on his post.

    • #134
  15. Randy Webster Member
    Randy Webster
    @RandyWebster

    Ed G. (View Comment):
    Quality rises to the top eventually via word of mouth and voting with likes, follows, and views.

    I see I’m doomed, then.

    • #135
  16. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    I think the media and government effort to trash two safe medicines as horse pills, or worse, dangerous, is evil. If they are safe, what harm can come from them? If they are unsafe, why are they in common use like hydroxy… is? Medicines often prove beneficial for uses other than the original intent? Why not keep the door open to this possibility?

    In this case, at the worst, they are a placebo. I would rather family members feel their loved one was given every possible cure and opportunity to live rather than believe they were denied a chance to recover and live.

    It is a cruel policy, this attack on medicine, that has no upside.

    • #136
  17. Caryn Thatcher
    Caryn
    @Caryn

    EHerring (View Comment):

    I think the media and government effort to trash two safe medicines as horse pills, or worse, dangerous, is evil. If they are safe, what harm can come from them? If they are unsafe, why are they in common use like hydroxy… is? Medicines often prove beneficial for uses other than the original intent? Why not keep the door open to this possibility?

    In this case, at the worst, they are a placebo. I would rather family members feel their loved one was given every possible cure and opportunity to live rather than believe they were denied a chance to recover and live.

    It is a cruel policy, this attack on medicine, that has no upside.

    The problem with taking medications is that they all have downsides.  However safe a medicine is in practice for the target patient population, there are always potential side effects and sometimes truly dangerous adverse events.  When a disease is being treated, the decision is made that the benefit outweighs the risks. 

    There’s something telling in your word choice in the last sentence.  You use “feel” and “believe,” neither of which have any meaning physiologically (apart from psychosomatic illness).

    At worst these unproven drugs are not a placebo; at worst they are poison.  Even the most supposedly benign over the counter medicines come with risks that must be weighed against the benefits.  People are pushing unproven drugs as wonder cures and the data just don’t back up the claims.  

    • #137
  18. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Caryn (View Comment):
    The problem with taking medications is that they all have downsides.  However safe a medicine is in practice for the target patient population, there are always potential side effects and sometimes truly dangerous adverse events.  When a disease is being treated, the decision is made that the benefit outweighs the risks.

    The problem is the trashing of HCQ and Ivermectin is extremely political (anti-Trump, anti-freedom). And the side effects for the vast majority of the people who might like to try them are likely minimal compared to COVID itself. The “studies,” such as they are, have not been well conducted (leaving out zinc, for example, when what HCQ does is open the cell wall to allow the zinc into the cell, which is the actual agent acting against the virus), and many are “ongoing” and not even published, although novel vaccines and anti-viral meds have been expedited with less rigor than seems to apply to these long-used drugs.

    Ivermectin is prescribed regularly to children in the ghettos to combat scabies, for example. 

    I think doctors and their patients should have the right to try. Better than ending up in the hospital with COVID. 

    • #138
  19. Flicker Coolidge
    Flicker
    @Flicker

    Caryn (View Comment):
    There’s something telling in your word choice in the last sentence.  You use “feel” and “believe,” neither of which have any meaning physiologically (apart from psychosomatic illness).

    Or psychosomatic health.

    • #139
  20. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    Caryn (View Comment):

    The problem with taking medications is that they all have downsides. [Death is a downside to not taking these meds] However safe a medicine is in practice for the target patient population, there are always potential side effects and sometimes truly dangerous adverse events. [This isn’t a logical argument for denying these meds, especially one that won a Nobel Prize and has been safe for years] When a disease is being treated, the decision is made that the benefit outweighs the risks. [Death from Covid vs a side effect… easy choice]

    There’s something telling in your word choice in the last sentence. You use “feel” and “believe,” neither of which have any meaning physiologically (apart from psychosomatic illness). [What is telling by “feel” and “believe”?  Both in the context of what I referred to are real issues and shouldn’t not be dismissed as mental issues]

    At worst these unproven [False. The have been in common use and you would deny any opportunity to prove them useful here ] drugs are not a placebo; at worst they are poison. [That is pure scare porn] Even the most supposedly benign over the counter medicines come with risks that must be weighed against the benefits. [I don’t disagree but then taking that fear to an extreme world turn me into anti vax, anti medicine based on the warning labels on every drug] People are pushing unproven drugs as wonder cures and the data just don’t back up the claims. [How can you have data if you ban the use? Save your argument for those pushing Covid vaccines on children and infants. How much data do they have on that?]

    • #140
  21. Blondie Thatcher
    Blondie
    @Blondie

    https://amgreatness.com/2021/11/22/doctors-not-administrators-should-be-treating-patients/

    My sister-in-law’s dad had COVID about six weeks ago. He was doing ok until one morning he wasn’t. She, being a nurse, was trying real hard to keep him from going to the hospital because it would have been in the network mentioned in the above story. She found a doc that would give him a script for Ivermectin. As she told me yesterday, he felt better the very next day. She truly believes it helped him. Either way, it didn’t hurt him. And just for reference, they are horse people and didn’t take the horses’ meds. 

    • #141
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.