Dr Robert Malone interview on Joe Rogan podcast

[Horta]

On 1/20/2022 at 8:42 AM, ChrLzs said:

From my personal viewpoint (I have health issues), I'm not concerned about catching Covid per se - it is what follows.  Here in Oz we were able to largely control the earlier variants, but Omicron is now becoming widespread.  But we're pretty much letting that happen - it is a choice we've made on the basis of our now high vaccination rate, and that Omicron is way more infectious but nowhere near as lethal (especially if you are vaxed).  If you look at the *results* of what is happening here, the rate of people requiring IC is currently about 20 or more times less for those who are fully vaccinated (like me and about 80% of Oz).  So the new variant is more like the Flu than the original Covid variants.  The US has a significantly lower vaccination rate (63%)~...   If many more people still get infected BUT the vaccinations then save them from a hospital visit or worse, isn't that a much better outcome?

So whether we're talking masks or vaccinations or whatever, each and every aspect must be considered and declared.

From my personal view I was fit and strong as a (somewhat old) horse before vaccination. So I have sympathy for those who were impacted to much much greater degree and the underwhelming experience gives me the impression no one knows how great this problem is (or cares, strangely). We seem to have been sold a "safe and effective" narrative, from the last people on earth we should ever accept such a thing from (Pharmaceutical Companies), and systematically ignore what is likely to be a very different reality.

As to whether there really is a net benefit from these particular vaccines, that isn't at all as clear as you believe. Some of the "non covid" mortality studies are worse and seem to be presented as simple propaganda IMO. Unfortunately writing about such things has people who a short while ago were welcome contributors to journals, to now being banned from preprint servers. Unfortunately the word "vaccine" makes an entire subject beyond criticism.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_suggest_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

[Horta]

On 1/20/2022 at 6:27 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

That is not an analogy to the experiments you brought up.  I'm missing, again, what people are doing or believing that they know or should logically know is false yet mass formation is making them do or think something they otherwise wouldn't.

The narrative that covid has killed 5.6 million people and the only effective measures we have are mass lockdowns, masks and mass vaccination. Is that better? Though it's constantly evolving, remember 95% efficacious and especially effective against variants, don't wear masks, the vaccinated don't carry the virus, that sort of thing? It must have been a real surprise to find that viruses mutate. Who could'a thunk it?

No one knows the real numbers and historians will have to look back with hindsight to find the reality. Our "predictive models" that threw us into chaos were only out by more than an order of magnitude. Leading to the idea we need to force vaccination on people who often have very rational reasons not to get vaccinated, and even if they don't there is no rational science based reasons to force it on them.

Quote

Come on, they are too mentioned and have been for decades, that's why you are aware of them.  Maybe it's because it's really easy to wear a mask and get a vaccine, if you have some way to convince people to not be obese then have at it.

So we're not locking down people who will further become vitamin D depleted, more obese playing video games because of the huge fines that not exercising within guidelines can result in, and feeding them constant doom to make them anxious and depressed?

This has been in many ways an inverted pandemic response. Something you would do if you want to make it as bad as possible.

Look at the stats for one of the few regions we have good data. Then have a look at the next link at the tables, you will find what carries risk. The average age of covid death there is 82.5 yrs, so everything about this disease says it's amenable to risk stratification and a targeted response, involving people's GP especially (risk/benefit). Yet we have sidelined them and forced people to accept a one size fits all techno fix. You really don't think age and health status determines the risk? 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/covid19deathsandautopsiesfeb2020todec2021

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/preexistingconditionsofpeoplewhodiedduetocovid19englandandwales

There was also a recent claim by one of the UK's top oncologists that 50,000 people will die of cancer alone due to our response (we did have other options). Not to mention that the WHO told us from the beginning that more people will die from our lockdowns in the developing world than covid could kill if we did nothing. Out of sight out of mind?

Quote

Isn't the increased risk of hospitalization for the unvaccinated vs the vaccinated relevant?

That would be a great argument if it were really demonstrable. I don't want to give you apoplexy lol but genuine study of all cause mortality throws doubt even on this.

Can you explain this? There are plenty of ideas (and even remote studies) and some of them reasonable. Have we sent teams of scientists to study this in depth? If not, why not? Would love to see it if so (genuinely). Have a look at the DRC figures, for instance, with a vaccination level of 0.2%? If it's wrong I'll happily concede. If not, where is the correlation?

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Horta

[Horta]

On 1/20/2022 at 6:55 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

Depends on the opinion, if your opinion includes a claim then yes it carries a burden of proof. 

There's a difference between "precisely this science reveals that matter is a form of consciousness" and "this leads to an academic consensus among scientists that matter is a form of consciousness". You don't think they are different things? Especially as it was only a quick "aside" without further explanation. I think you are being overly critical but mostly, irrelevant to the topic. One thing that is indisputable is that consciousness resides in matter, so I'd enjoy hearing what he bases this on.

Quote

I assumed that you offered this Dr's opinion because of his scientific expertise, and not just solely because he's a person with an opinion.  I don't know what's out of bounds or irrelevant about looking to other things he's said about science in evaluating his scientific expertise and opinions.

Again, I don't know if he's wrong that matter is 'a form of consciousness', I do know he's wrong about science revealing that that statement is true.  Yes, I do go claiming that is false and since as you just said, 'of course it hasn't', it would seem I'm in good company.

Actually it was his expertise in psychology, particularly that part relevant to the topic. 

Quote

Anyway, I think it'd be interesting to focus more on the Mass Formation questions since we're both kinda touching on a lot of other subjects.  I'm still stuck on this basic question, what are people believing that is obviously not true that we need Mass Formation as a theory to explain their behavior?  Again, I'm not finding anything that's close to, or maybe just not as concise as, judging how long a line is like in the conformity experiment.  The quotes you provided from politicians about the unvaccinated are a bit more vague than that, and again I see a very big difference between what I understand of Mass Formation as opposed to people coming to possibly unsupported conclusions about the unvaccinated's contribution to the pandemic.  Applying vaccination mandates has a lot more reasoning for it that go way beyond 'give this person a shock because I told you to', we already have lots of 'mandates'/laws that we 'force' on other people in place even though some people believe it unreasonably infringes on their 'freedom'.  I'm not that up to date on all the mandates in other countries, I didn't realize/remember until now that you aren't in the US, so may be better to try to focus on this as it's presumably more science-related.

Inject this chemical into someone's arm (against their wishes) because I told you to? World leaders conflating people who are far from convinced about the vaccines with "anti vaxxers, misogynists' and racists", others threatening to "p*** off the unvaccinated", academics openly calling for "forced vaccination", others (Chomsky) wanting to leave them out of society altogether (and thus not be able to get the bare necessities such as food).

You're actually lucky in the US that the system is at least hanging on (so far), but this is a phenomena covering (mostly) the western world.

This is far worse than what Desmet is alluding to IMO. It is another chapter in the collapse of western civilization. Politics has long been dysfunctional, as has the economic system, the ecosystem is struggling, now we have an entire branch of research science so rife with politics and corporate interests it is also crumbling. I have doubts it will ever recover. So onwards we merch...

[Horta]

On 1/20/2022 at 6:27 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

It's actually closer to how doctors and scientists should phrase things.  Nothing deserves a bigger asterisk than a doctor who is guaranteeing things.

Well there are conceivable instances where masks could be protective to >99% against infection (scuba divers for instance). That's all irrelevant while people are running around with ill fitting cloth masks though. The >80% spiel is an example of the same logic. "Mask up people" (but read the fine print) works for used car salesmen but it really shouldn't for public health officials. If they really thought it worthwhile there would be no ill fitting or home made cloth masks being worn. 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Horta

[Gummug]

10 hours ago, Horta said:

From my personal view I was fit and strong as a (somewhat old) horse before vaccination. So I have sympathy for those who were impacted to much much greater degree and the underwhelming experience gives me the impression no one knows how great this problem is (or cares, strangely). We seem to have been sold a "safe and effective" narrative, from the last people on earth we should ever accept such a thing from (Pharmaceutical Companies), and systematically ignore what is likely to be a very different reality.

As to whether there really is a net benefit from these particular vaccines, that isn't at all as clear as you believe. Some of the "non covid" mortality studies are worse and seem to be presented as simple propaganda IMO. Unfortunately writing about such things has people who a short while ago were welcome contributors to journals, to now being banned from preprint servers. Unfortunately the word "vaccine" makes an entire subject beyond criticism.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357778435_Official_mortality_data_for_England_suggest_systematic_miscategorisation_of_vaccine_status_and_uncertain_effectiveness_of_Covid-19_vaccination

Careful Horta you might be called a liar for saying you had an adverse reaction. Or that it is all in your head. (This actually happened to a lady who had a debilitating reaction to the jab.)

[ChrLzs]

16 hours ago, Horta said:

I have sympathy for those who were impacted to much much greater degree and the underwhelming experience gives me the impression no one knows how great this problem is (or cares, strangely). We seem to have been sold a "safe and effective" narrative, from the last people on earth we should ever accept such a thing from (Pharmaceutical Companies)

You really need to cite that claim, as well.  But given what follows, it's probably not worth me asking...

16 hours ago, Horta said:

As to whether there really is a net benefit from these particular vaccines, that isn't at all as clear as you believe.

I believe it's very complex, and unless you know what you are doing, you'll probably simply grab at anything that supports your view, and that applies to both sides.  That's why we look for PEER REVIEWED material published in respected journals...

16 hours ago, Horta said:

Unfortunately writing about such things has people who a short while ago were welcome contributors to journals, to now being banned from preprint servers.

How does that work exactly?  Is that a conspiracy by all respected journals?  You do know how science works?

16 hours ago, Horta said:

Unfortunately the word "vaccine" makes an entire subject beyond criticism.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicati  (link redacted)

And what do we find at that link (did you actually read it?).  I quote:

Quote

... Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Oh dear.  We haven't even got to first base.  Seems an odd choice for your research paper of choice..

Quote

The risk/benefit of Covid vaccines is arguably most accurately measured by comparing the all-cause mortality rate of vaccinated against unvaccinated

Arguably?  That's the first of many similar weasel words that do NOT belong in a research paper.

Quote

We examine two of the most recent UK ONS vaccine mortality surveillance reports

So, it's arguable, and indeed later in the paper it goes into some detail as to why these stats are not really suitable.. and yet it's the only dataset they used?

Quote

We also find no evidence that socio-demographic or behavioural differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated can explain these anomalies

So there are anomalies and they can't find evidence, and they refer to just two areas of concern (both of which are likely complex and subjective)...

Seriously?  This is 'science'?  Words fail me.  If a student showed me this as their thesis, they would be shown the door with several suggestions for a major re-write and a suggestion they need to start with the foundations and get that right before building a house that will fall down..

Edited January 26, 2022 by ChrLzs

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 1/25/2022 at 4:56 AM, Horta said:

The narrative that covid has killed 5.6 million people and the only effective measures we have are mass lockdowns, masks and mass vaccination. Is that better?

It would be better if you could find a quote from someone of relevance who said 'only'.

On 1/25/2022 at 4:56 AM, Horta said:

don't wear masks, the vaccinated don't carry the virus,

The only 'don't wear masks' I've heard of was a statement very early in the pandemic.  Like the above, who said the vaccinated don't carry the virus?

On 1/25/2022 at 4:56 AM, Horta said:

even if they don't there is no rational science based reasons to force it on them.

Whether something should be 'forced' or not is a subjective determination, not a scientific one, just to be clear.  If your goal is to reduce the number of hospitalizations, then there are rational science based reasons for people to get vaccinated.

On 1/25/2022 at 4:56 AM, Horta said:

The average age of covid death there is 82.5 yrs, so everything about this disease says it's amenable to risk stratification and a targeted response, involving people's GP especially (risk/benefit). Yet we have sidelined them and forced people to accept a one size fits all techno fix. You really don't think age and health status determines the risk? 

"Determines", no unless you are just using 'health status' tautologically; 'affects', obviously yes.  Have you determined if we have enough resources to customize the response for millions of people, and give people different rules to follow based on their specific health situation?  More specific rules usually require that much more administration, so what's the cost/benefit of that?

On 1/25/2022 at 4:56 AM, Horta said:

So we're not locking down people who will further become vitamin D depleted, more obese playing video games because of the huge fines that not exercising within guidelines can result in,

Again I don't know where you are but here in the US we've always been able to go outside in sunshine even during our 'lockdowns' I believe.  And let's keep going if we're going to talk about the stereotype of obese video-gamers, you cut that off rather abruptly - uh yea, the only thing keeping them from working out and eating better is their local gym being closed... 

On 1/25/2022 at 4:56 AM, Horta said:

That would be a great argument if it were really demonstrable. I don't want to give you apoplexy lol but genuine study of all cause mortality throws doubt even on this.

Thanks for your concern and not to give you a stroke yourself but you moved very quickly from 'hospitalization' to 'mortality'.  Not a totally unreasonable leap, but unneeded when we have data concerning hospitalizations specifically.

Quote

Further analysis by the agency has concluded that unvaccinated adults are as much as eight times more likely to be admitted to hospital than those who have been vaccinated and that booster doses are 88% effective at preventing hospital admission.4

A separate report published by the UKHSA showed that, although unvaccinated individuals made up only a small proportion of the overall population, they accounted for 27% of those with a confirmed case of omicron admitted to hospital in England and for 39% in London.5

The Office for National Statistics’ latest report on deaths from covid-19 covering the period from January to October last year in England found that the age adjusted rate of death was 96% lower in people who had received a second dose of vaccine than in those who were unvaccinated.6

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 1/25/2022 at 4:56 AM, Horta said:

The narrative that covid has killed 5.6 million people and the only effective measures we have are mass lockdowns, masks and mass vaccination. Is that better?  Though it's constantly evolving, remember 95% efficacious and especially effective against variants, don't wear masks, the vaccinated don't carry the virus, that sort of thing? 

(repeated quote above, I tried to split out mass formation discussion from other general covid stuff)

Again, I don't see any of these statements as analogs to the conformity experiments you mentioned.  Looking up more detail on the Asch Conformity experiment, this experiment was structured this way to get around problems found in an earlier Sherif's conformity experiment as that experiment was ambiguous.  I think that is similar to the same problem with your examples as I think you have above, in that it is difficult to determine conformity concerning something that is ambiguous, thus Asch used simple lines, where there is objectively a correct answer and almost everyone is equipped to determine that.  Something like "the vaccinated don't carry the virus", even if someone did state it, is ambiguous from a layman's perspective, they don't have the expertise to evaluate the question, there is no correct answer that they know and are avoiding because of conformity.  People believe experts, go to doctors, call plumbers, etc, not out of 'conformity' but out of a rational understanding of the concept of 'expertise'.  Nor does it become 'conformity' in the case where what the experts are relaying turns out to be incorrect.

On 1/25/2022 at 6:00 AM, Horta said:

Inject this chemical into someone's arm (against their wishes) because I told you to?

Where is this being done, who is being injected without their ultimate consent?  What if whatever supposed pawn doing this forced injection does not believe it is reasonably harmful and is beneficial?  That's not conformity either, that's coming to a conclusion, possibly based on bad data but doing something because of an incorrect personal conclusion is not mere conformity either.

Here's some more detail from Desmet https://covidvaccinesideeffects.com/mattias-desmet-on-mass-formation-psychosis/ 

Quote

“So all this free floating anxiety is attached to, connected to, the object of anxiety indicated in the narrative. And there is a huge willingness to participate in the strategy to deal with this object of anxiety because in this way, people feel that they can control their anxiety and their psychological discontent better. So all this anxiety connects to the subject of anxiety, and there is a huge willingness to participate in the strategy and that leads up to something very specific. People suddenly feel connected again in a heroic struggle with the object of anxiety. So a new kind of solidarity, a new kind of social bond and a new kind of meaning emerges in society. And that’s the reason why people follow the narrative, why people buy into the narrative and why they are willing to participate in this strategy.“

The above I'm sure describes > 0 people, I just don't think there's any support for the idea that it is the majority view.  I don't participate or support strategies to 'control my anxiety' unless we'd say that's why I also support drunk driving laws and why I take anti-biotics for infections, which I certainly wouldn't.  That's the problem with this psychological mumbo-jumbo, it assumes as a given that 'the narrative' is just so obviously ridiculous that people know or should know it is incorrect, something that is utterly unproven and not well unevidenced.  After all as you say, 'no one knows the real numbers', and that applies to many pieces of data we don't have (like the internal cognitive states of millions of people).  I think there's another issue in that I think Desmet's previous work concerned the experiment replication problem, which I think is especially prevalent in psychological studies. So if experiments are questionable, what is the support for his 'theory' (as in 'hypothesis' or 'guess', not as in 'scientific theory') is based on what?

What is interesting also is the networked media machine concerning anything anti-vax or anti-covid-measures, and how quickly these narratives get spun around, I just saw Eric Clapton name-drop Desmet over the weekend.  People do love things that they want to hear, regardless of their accuracy.

On 1/25/2022 at 6:00 AM, Horta said:

One thing that is indisputable is that consciousness resides in matter

As does flatulence, but no one goes around saying 'materialistic science shows that all matter is farty'.

[Horta]

On 1/26/2022 at 11:25 AM, ChrLzs said:

You really need to cite that claim, as well.  But given what follows, it's probably not worth me asking...

Cite what claim? That I have suffered a vaccine mishap? No problem there, discard it. I don't mind, after all people lie all the time and you have no way of knowing. Not offended by that in the slightest (I applaud the skepticism).

Or that I have the "impression" that it is a bigger problem than we know? How would I cite that, send you an MRI scan lol?

Surely you don't need a citation to indicate that drug companies are dishonest.

I'll cite nothing there so yes, it's not worth asking, if you are that naïve it won't matter. 

Quote

I believe it's very complex, and unless you know what you are doing, you'll probably simply grab at anything that supports your view, and that applies to both sides.  That's why we look for PEER REVIEWED material published in respected journals...

You mean like the ones showing 95% efficacy of the vaccines? That turned out well didn't it? What with >80% efficient masks and 95% efficacious vaccine, the poor little virus didn't stand a chance......Oh, wait on...

Or the Israeli study confirming the "95%" by a Pfizer shareholder "scientist" whose methods involved continually PCR testing the unvaccinated, but seemed to forget the vaccinated could also be tested (nah, they're vaccinated after all lol). This one would have been hilarious only for the subject matter. Not strictly journal peer reviewed but still. Some potent fairy dust in those vaccines. Won't stop you getting covid, will make you impervious to car accidents, drownings, cancer and so on though. Sounds legit. 

Or in the early pandemic when propaganda articles started appearing claiming a scientific "consensus" that the virus didn't escape from a lab (conspiracy theory that). While at the same time the author (and editors?) knew that some of the worlds top virologists were expressing concern at exactly that to his superiors. Full of undisclosed self interest as well.

Unfortunately the peer review process is broken anyway and going the way of the dodo. I can also see a whole branch of science needing a reset after this pandemic as it now serves the needs of politics and corporations.

Quote

How does that work exactly?  Is that a conspiracy by all respected journals?  You do know how science works?

As for the journals, they follow the narrative. It's in their best interests. Not sure about the preprint servers though. That's a strange one.

Quote

And what do we find at that link (did you actually read it?).  I quote:

Oh dear.  We haven't even got to first base.  Seems an odd choice for your research paper of choice..

I don't think you read my post. He has gone from regularly contributing to peer reviewed journals and articles on mainstream sites, to being relegated to preprint servers, to now not even being able to do that (and having some of his work disappear according to himself). He now puts articles on his own blog. That's the price for not towing the line.

Quote

Arguably?  That's the first of many similar weasel words that do NOT belong in a research paper.

Lol.

It's not really a "research paper" though I agree that "certainly" or "without doubt" might have been more appropriate. What can I say, academic reticence and all that.

If "arguably" is a weasel word and you are arguing about it, what would that mean lol?

Quote

So, it's arguable, and indeed later in the paper it goes into some detail as to why these stats are not really suitable.. and yet it's the only dataset they used?

So he should use the other official data from that other UK Office of National Statistics? How enlightening, I didn't know there were any others.

I think you might find has has written to UK parliament with his complaints about acceptable data, has actually convinced the ONS to make some changes and has even had to acquire some of it through FOI.

So if you find anomalies in the official data, what you do is ignore the whole thing and find data somewhere that you agree with lol? Not sure you're getting the point of this exercise.

Quote

So there are anomalies and they can't find evidence, and they refer to just two areas of concern (both of which are likely complex and subjective)...

Oh right, so it's "complex". That settles it then.

Not the sort of thing an expert in statistical analysis should bother with. It's not like statistical complexity is their specialty or anything.

Quote

Words fail me.

Unlikely lol.

Quote

If a student showed me this as their thesis, they would be shown the door with several suggestions for a major re-write and a suggestion they need to start with the foundations and get that right before building a house that will fall down..

Well when I graduated the 6th grade (was a splendid 3 years), if a teacher looked at a statistical study and started talking in vague platitudes about foundations and buildings I would have thought one of us was in the wrong dept.

Not much rebutting going on here, lots of "harumphing" though. 

[Golden Duck]

49 minutes ago, Horta said:

Or in the early pandemic when propaganda articles started appearing claiming a scientific "consensus" that the virus didn't escape from a lab (conspiracy theory that). While at the same time the author (and editors?) knew that some of the worlds top virologists were expressing concern at exactly that to his superiors. Full of undisclosed self interest as well.

Those top scientists have subsequently contradicted what was purportedly "expressed to superiors".

It's plausible that the suppression was an exercise in diplomacy so that EHA could maintain its access to WIV.

Now that access has gone.

Whether, or not, the Sinophobia is justified, we now see South Africa questioning if they should share data.

There's no incentive to put self interest at risk.

[Horta]

Firstly I would like to make something clear as we are diverging from the topic. The present argument about vaccines in no way informed my feeling about Desmet's claim. In fact I felt something was wrong this way and was anti mandate even before I got vaccinated, when I still believed. Desmet simply helped explain it.

On 1/27/2022 at 12:58 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

It would be better if you could find a quote from someone of relevance who said 'only'.

No, that would be crazy.

I'm wondering if you could find an accurate quote from someone of relevance that said the real number "actually". Of course the real mortality figure from covid will begin at around 10% or less (going by real statistics, not the ones designed for hysteria). From there finding a true figure will be a big grey area and as is usual with statistics will be an "estimate" of more, or less, reliability.

As to how many people have had covid, we will only ever be able to estimate that after wide ranging seroprevalence studies from around the world. It's likely to be a far higher number than we now believe.

There could have been a response without governments going all "Fourth Reich", without the massive bureaucratic and corporate over reach, unprecedented censorship and propaganda campaign, political opportunism, coercion and stigmatization via restrictions on freedom, employment and travel of a certain group, based on real science that could well (almost certainly would) have seen less mortality and wouldn't have resulted in fractured societies and health consequences that will only be apparent in the following years  and decades (leaving out the possible consequences of the vaccines themselves).

Overlooking the obvious strawman nature of the "only" in your response, which also offers a red herring by way of "appeal to emotion" and is disingenuous.

Quote

The only 'don't wear masks' I've heard of was a statement very early in the pandemic.  Like the above, who said the vaccinated don't carry the virus?

You mean Fauci, before he admitted that he was lying?

Oblivious to the propaganda campaign? 

Walensky - "We`re vaccinating so very fast, our data from the CDC today suggests, you know, that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don`t get sick, and that it`s not just in the clinical trials but it`s also in real world data."

Maddow - "A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them. The virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person as a host to get more people."

https://www.msnbc.com/transcripts/transcript-rachel-maddow-show-3-29-21-n1262442

Biden- "We’re making sure healthcare workers are vaccinated, because if you seek care at a healthcare facility, you should have the certainty that the pro- — the people providing that care are protected from COVID and cannot spread it to you."

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2021/10/07/biden_vaccinated_protected_from_covid_cannot_spread_it_to_you.html#!

None of those claims made by Walensky Maddow and Biden are true ^. It was a very common claim at the time.

Incidentally here is a doctor talking bout the obvious lie claim that masks can be >80% effective. It is (unfortunately given the subject) hilarious.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jisNUWX7hc&ab_channel=VinayPrasadMDMPH

Quote

Whether something should be 'forced' or not is a subjective determination, not a scientific one, just to be clear.  If your goal is to reduce the number of hospitalizations, then there are rational science based reasons for people to get vaccinated.

Of course it should be based on science. That's the whole point. If so, why force vaccines on people who have better immunity via infection? Science?

Apart from that, can you back up your claim re hospitalization with reliable real world statistics. Where "unvaccinated" is defined as  "have had 0 covid vaccines" and "vaccinated" means "the rest". Also for people who were hospitalized as a direct result of covid19 infection. 

From a reputable source with accurate population statistics than can be scrutinized. Thanks?

'Cause I'm sitting here looking at a world where there simply is no correlation between mortality and vaccination. The same as I watched the world a while ago where there was no correlation between covid spread and vaccination.

There also seems to be a myth here that the vaccines were designed to reduce severe covid/ hospitalisation. This is not true (certainly not for Pfizer or Moderna). It can easily be looked up in the NEJM. Remember the "95%" efficacy that was the primary endpoint of the study? What do you think that referred to?

Protection from severe covid was one of the secondary endpoints. Presumably because if you have to document it anyway, why not? Though I would argue if your going to support results this way from such a comparatively small sample size, you also have to accept that all cause mortality was greater in the vaccine arm (for Pfizer).

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

Quote

Have you determined if we have enough resources to customize the response for millions of people, and give people different rules to follow based on their specific health situation?  More specific rules usually require that much more administration, so what's the cost/benefit of that?

You mean like we do with pretty much everything else? Where you decide with your doctor (risk/benefit) if something is best for you? The problem is that doctors have been sidelined in this process via being ostracized or worse if they do this and we don't have clean data anyway. 

How important is cost to begin with and how do you know it wouldn't cost less? In fact there were proposals from world leading scientists that would have cost far less in terms of health, economics, psychology and sociology.

Instead of throwing trillions at rich people, blaming the unvaccinated and making token gestures (masking for instance), perhaps a decent health care system during a pandemic could have helped in the US?

Quote

Not a totally unreasonable leap, but unneeded when we have data concerning hospitalizations specifically.

Please see earlier request.

Quote

https://www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o5

The INARC reports were great but the ones I looked at were for critically ill ICU patients "18 and older" re vaccine status (which seems to leave put a lot of potentially unvaccinated humans) for people who tested positive for covid "within 28 days before, or no more than two days after" admission. Though at least they did distinguish between patients where covid was primary/secondary illness.

The "unvaccinated" definition given is unreliable to begin with IMO. But this fact check, while wrong in it's actual fact check lol (the data most definitely did show comparatively huge rates of covid in the vaccinated in most age groups) at least shows why neither data are reliable. To be reliable we would have to know how many people are unvaccinated, and they UK health authorities admit themselves they don't know this.

A mathematician/data analysis expert has already tried to make sense of UK data including some referenced in this thread (credit to him, that can't have been easy) and now claims neither of the relevant data sets are reliable (in fact he now claims all covid data to be unreliable with good reason IMO), and has offered hypothesis for the wild anomalies (also seen in all cause and non covid mortality data).

The CDC data is not terribly useful or reliable to begin with. Is Walensky and the CDC really this incompetent? Their vaccination status miscounted by "millions" lol? Go to 6.58 for the relevant part, the preceding is worth it also.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpwSYQelMEg&ab_channel=VinayPrasadMDMPH

It should be simpler than this LG. In a population there will be "unvaccinated" people who have had no vaccine and "the rest" who have. As the WHO chief scientist claimed (in respect to Gilead wanting to know why they were not approving Remdesivir based on mortality studies), "as endpoints go, death is a difficult one to fudge". An all cause mortality study between the two would show whether the benefit outweighs the risks. The definitions commonly used make it a certainty that (if there is any) overlooked hospitalizations and mortality from the vaccines themselves, these will be shifted to the "unvaccinated" group and for such studies, this is unacceptable. There are all sort of other problems with covid stats.

 

[ChrLzs]

See if you can spot the problem, dear readers...

On 1/29/2022 at 1:33 AM, Horta said:

Cite what claim? {so no cite}

How would I cite that, send you an MRI scan lol? {no cite}

Surely you don't need a citation {no cite}

I'll cite nothing there {no cite}

You mean like the ones showing 95% efficacy / >80% efficient masks / 95% efficacious vaccine {none of which were cited or placed in context}

Or the Israeli study confirming the "95%" {no cite}

Not strictly journal peer reviewed but still. {not cited anyway}

Or in the early pandemic when propaganda articles {no cites}

Unfortunately the peer review process is broken anyway {only if you are terminally stupid and don't understand how to verify the quality (and in some cases, the existence) of peer review - for chrissake the one you linked SAID it wasn't reviewed!}

As for the journals, they follow the narrative. {no cites}

Oh the irony of that little face.... 

Is it just me is there a rather obvious pattern up there?  It's the pattern of a ____ _______ (insert favorite insult) who won't back up their claims.

 

[Horta]

2 hours ago, ChrLzs said:

See if you can spot the problem, dear readers...

Oh the irony of that little face.... 

Is it just me is there a rather obvious pattern up there?  It's the pattern of a ____ _______ (insert favorite insult) who won't back up their claims.

 

You're just not getting it ChrLzs. I know that paper isn't reviewed, because as I stated his papers are now all being rejected (which was the stated point). Somewhat difficult getting to review from there lol. Ever since he started offering hypotheses and pointing out things contra the narrative. Nowhere did I claim it was peer reviewed.

The mask studies are already linked and discussed recently in this thread. Look for them yourself. If you doubt the "80%", no disagreement there, you'll have to take it up with the director of the CDC.

For things I have a "feeling" about, I don't need a citation (it seems unfortunate for yourself that you think I do). A more reasonable request might be to ask what I base this feeling on? Because I'm getting the feeling you need a citation before you would be able to pick your nose lol? Sitting back constantly demanding citations for every trivial thing doesn't make for reasonable discussion. 

As far as insults go, don't be so thin skinned. I don't really take either of us that seriously and little banter doesn't hurt. As a matter of fact I really held back after reading the teacher/student construction industry spiel lol. The sarcasm was difficult to contain.

Demanding citations for common widely known claims (like the efficacy claims) gets tedious and is like talking to a youngster continually asking "why". Look up the NEJM for the Pfizer and Moderna studies (think it was 94.1% for Moderna). That's an unreasonable request, as it's common knowledge (for everyone else) and really quite easy to find if not.

As to drug company dishonesty, do your own research, disagree (will need citations for that though lol) or ignore it.

A few good places to start might be with the level corporate fines these lot pay without a whimper (part the business model?). The Gilead Remdesivir studies and FDA approval (and WHO rejection), the opioid crisis and Purdue Pharma, the FDA approval of aducanamab for Alzheimer's after 0 of the 11 experts recommended accepting its use and several resigned in protest. Try to find if any of the board had vested financial interests, that sort of thing.

Or sit back continually calling "citation" while I chuckle.

There are no links (afaik) to the early Daszak articles that were removed. The  Lancet commissioned task force looking into pandemic origins was also shut down. Here is a BMJ article discussing it. There were others in other publications but meh, wasted enough time on something that anyone keeping up with this saga already knows.

Quote

"Shortly after the pandemic began Daszak led a February 2020 statement in the Lancet alleging that it was a “conspiracy theory” to argue that the pandemic could have started from a laboratory leak in Wuhan. “I have no conflicts of interest,” Daszak later told the Washington Post, regarding his collaboration with Shi Zhengli of the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

But Daszak’s story began falling apart last November when the non-profit group US Right to Know published emails gathered through a freedom of information request that showed he had orchestrated the Lancet statement without disclosing that he was funding Shi Zhengli through grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH)."

The Israeli study request is fair enough.

Wouldn't take it all so personal, it's an internet forum. If it really gets to you that much, put me on ignore.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Horta

[Horta]

5 hours ago, Horta said:

Of course the real mortality figure from covid will begin at around 10% or less (going by real statistics, not the ones designed for hysteria). From there finding a true figure will be a big grey area and as is usual with statistics will be an "estimate" of more, or less, reliability.

*That should have read 10% "of the commonly used figure".

[+Liquid Gardens]

6 hours ago, Horta said:

Overlooking the obvious strawman nature of the "only" in your response, which also offers a red herring by way of "appeal to emotion" and is disingenuous.

?  Wow, you don't know what a strawman is?  Psst, it's not a strawman when I can directly quote you:  "The narrative that covid has killed 5.6 million people and the only effective measures we have are mass lockdowns, masks and mass vaccination".  What am I misrepresenting there, what are you talking about, that was your claim?  And we haven't even gotten to the junk past the comma, what appeal to what emotion?  Where am I disingenuous?  Did you just stumble upon some list of logical fallacies and thought you'd toss them in without first understanding them?  If you take 'the only' out of that statement I'd agree you're very close to 'the narrative', but it's 'disingenuous' to pretend you didn't include it.  And yes, they are different, after excising 'the only' we can add 'and continue research into finding safe and effective treatments, monitoring the pandemic and adjusting and removing these rules accordingly', etc.  That would sound significantly less 'Reichy' though.

6 hours ago, Horta said:

None of those claims made by Walensky Maddow and Biden are true ^. It was a very common claim at the time.

Which 'it'?  If "don't wear masks" was a 'very common claim' it was for a very short amount of time.  You seem utterly shocked that over the course of a two-year-long, once-in-a-century pandemic that you can find people who said incorrect things.  You ignore too that I don't believe for example with Maddow or Walensky's current position is that the virus cannot infect the vaccinated, and your quote from Maddow was from roughly a couple months after the beginning of vaccinations, when were dealing with a different variant.  Yes,  thank you for providing who said this in response to my request, I thought there'd be a bit more to it as we were talking about the 'narrative' (as if it was one thing).  What is the rule, once you say something incorrect you're out?  I believe all of these people have made tens if not hundreds of thousands of statements, are you positive their rate of saying untrue things is worse than yours or anyone else's?

6 hours ago, Horta said:

Apart from that, can you back up your claim re hospitalization with reliable real world statistics. Where "unvaccinated" is defined as  "have had 0 covid vaccines" and "vaccinated" means "the rest". Also for people who were hospitalized as a direct result of covid19 infection. 

I'm not sure what you are looking for, a google search brings up many links to different states, here's the CDC's:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccination

Concerning the correlation between increased deaths among the unvaccinated:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

Is this the standard you set for yourself too?  You just posted a graph of countries, and wow China's really kicking ass with their vaccination programs with so few deaths, you validated that for accuracy of course?

6 hours ago, Horta said:

There also seems to be a myth here that the vaccines were designed to reduce severe covid/ hospitalisation. This is not true (certainly not for Pfizer or Moderna). It can easily be looked up in the NEJM.

I went to the NEJM site and it does not look easy to look up what you say above, do you have a link?

6 hours ago, Horta said:

You mean like we do with pretty much everything else? Where you decide with your doctor (risk/benefit) if something is best for you?

Who is 'we'?  There was a wait to get in to see your doctor before the pandemic, how are they going to handle everyone coming at once to determine if they are at risk for a vaccination or not?

6 hours ago, Horta said:

 perhaps a decent health care system during a pandemic could have helped in the US?

Unquestionably.  It just has nothing to do with what response should be taken when the pandemic occurred, a decent modernized navy and air force would have helped the US at Pearl Harbor too for that matter.

6 hours ago, Horta said:

The CDC data is not terribly useful or reliable to begin with.  

There are all sort of other problems with covid stats.

Ha, that's... convenient.  Are your covid stats an exception?

[+Liquid Gardens]

7 hours ago, Horta said:

Firstly I would like to make something clear as we are diverging from the topic. The present argument about vaccines in no way informed my feeling about Desmet's claim.

Thanks agreed the above stuff is a separate topic, we are drifting away from the topic. The topic is difficult to discuss anyway, it's a vague opinion that is difficult for me not to see just as a hand-wavey 'people who disagree with my opinion are deluded' non-argument (from Desmet mainly, that's not an accusation that you are saying that).  Plus we've got at least three versions floating around; there's the OP mass formation psychosis by Malone which seems to be pretty much unsupported, there's Desmet's mass formation which he likens to hypnosis and then there's your version where I think you said something like hypnosis is not the right word.  With most other serious theories there'd be more to look at to evaluate these differences but since this is apparently new and unestablished, it's difficult to know how and definitely the extent of 'if' it applies.

Besides, why can't mass formation just be turned around, why aren't your views on the mandates largely governed by your desire for social connection to the non-inconsequential number of people who believe the narrative that you do, etcetera?

[Horta]

On 1/31/2022 at 2:53 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

?  Wow, you don't know what a strawman is?  Psst, it's not a strawman when I can directly quote you:  "The narrative that covid has killed 5.6 million people and the only effective measures we have are mass lockdowns, masks and mass vaccination". 

Apologies then, my mistake. I thought you were using the term "only" in reference to the number.

What other measures were widely promoted then?

Quote

Which 'it'?  If "don't wear masks" was a 'very common claim' it was for a very short amount of time.  You seem utterly shocked that over the course of a two-year-long, once-in-a-century pandemic that you can find people who said incorrect things.  

I'm still waiting for them to make an accurate prediction, or admit the obvious before they have no choice. What I'm surprised at is the scope of this public health failure, the crushing of open scientific discourse via a massive propaganda campaign and demonizing of scientists who don't go along with the narrative. The level of corporate and political capture in certain areas of research science is also astounding.

It's not a pandemic...oops

It's not transferred from person to person...oops.

Its not airborne...oops.

The "lab leak" hypothesis is a nutty conspiracy theory...oops.

Don't wear masks...oops (wear two).

Just two weeks to flatten the curve...yeah sure.

Vaccines are 95% efficacious and effective against variants...oops.

The vaccinated don't spread the virus...oops.

it's a pandemic of the unvaccinated...oops.

Vaccine immunity is better than natural immunity (from infection)...oops.

The vaccines protect from severe covid...status pending.

That's without really trying. I remember listening to an extremely well qualified doctor/scientist explaining that these drugs would cause endothelial inflammation, platelet activation and thrombotic events (among other things). It was booted from youtube and he is seen as a conspiracy nutter as the "experts" were saying it isn't so. Have a look trough the latest literature and see what they are studying. To make it worse the genius health authorities are requesting it be administered wrongly (against manufacturers recommendations) and thus making certain it will be injected into the blood stream in some people.

Hopefully his other claims are wrong, but we won't know for quite a while.

Quote

Who is 'we'?

The modern western world.

Quote

There was a wait to get in to see your doctor before the pandemic, how are they going to handle everyone coming at once to determine if they are at risk for a vaccination or not?

That's easy enough. The same way it's always done. Why would "everyone" need to do this? Why would normal healthy people below a certain age, especially those who have recovered from covid, think they need a vaccine? If this was done properly we could have gone a long way to achieving herd immunity (Ro<1) before the vaccines were ever developed.

Doctors have been ostracized and threatened with all sorts if they do anything other than recommend vaccination.

Quote

 

I'm not sure what you are looking for, a google search brings up many links to different states, here's the CDC's:

https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#covidnet-hospitalizations-vaccination

Concerning the correlation between increased deaths among the unvaccinated:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

Have you had a look at it in any depth (the data and methods it is based on)? Or you just accept what you're told? The CDC has some of the worst data to begin with, that's why states often use their own. Those figures are not very comprehensive and are limited in time. There is also limited information on whether there were any lags in reporting. Though few people will have looked at it in any great depth as it doesn't seem comprehensive enough to be worthwhile and they also don't seem able to count. Who miscalculates the number of vaccinated by literally millions? lol.

The BMJ article you quoted for the UK had better data, but I doubt it's good enough to support what they are claiming. There is no separate age stratified data, the definitions are not always consistent, and we don't know for some if it whether these people were in hospital because of covid to begin with (or even if they had covid at the time).

One claim relied largely on a dataset that took in the time in the UK where the deaths were highest and there basically was no vaccination, which is basically being dishonest with statistics. It also relies on data that leaves out about 12+ million people of a demographic that will be mostly unvaccinated and younger. The definitions are also inconsistent.  The Omicron study was interesting though, that showed 25% of those admitted to hospital from Emergency Depts were unvaccinated (from a group comprising about 30% of total population).

There are some very interesting trends in the mortality statistics (both all cause and non covid). Such as huge spikes in mortality in the unvaccinated as the vaccine rolls out in each age group, with no real explanation. You are left wondering if the vaccine is killing the people who aren't taking it. Look further though and there are reasonable explanations.

Unfortunately none of it seems good enough to do all cause mortality studies. What it should show in each age group is that there is a net benefit to being vaccinated (less mortality). When adjusted for obvious anomalies (population estimates, bogus definitions for instance) it doesn't show this, it seems to indicate the opposite.

Quote

Ha, that's... convenient.  Are your covid stats an exception?

Lol.

https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-12-21/uneven-reporting-raises-doubts-about-cdc-vaccination-numbers

 

Quote

Is this the standard you set for yourself too?  You just posted a graph of countries, and wow China's really kicking ass with their vaccination programs with so few deaths, you validated that for accuracy of course?

If you're doubting the data I agree. There doesn't seem to be any reliable data (which is a concern) nor any standardized definitions. China on this graph is obviously bogus, but if it showed reality it would further support my point.

Why do the countries that have fared the best seem to be the least vaccinated? Worldwide, where is there any correlation between vaccination and mortality? It is the same with spread of covid, there is no correlation. 

[Horta]

ps.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577

[Horta]

This sums up why covid data is unreliable. It's only the tip of the iceberg though. Once you start getting into vaccinated/unvaccinated data it gets far worse. No standard definitions in testing, or amount of testing between groups followed by no standard definition in what being vaccinated/unvaccinated means. Then it gets further murky re what a covid death or hospitalizations means. It's so bad that you really have to wonder if it's on purpose. It also makes most vaccine studies useless IMO.

https://collateralglobal.org/article/pcr-testing-in-the-uk-during-the-sars-cov-2-pandemic/

 

There should be good detailed mortality studies aplenty, but there doesn't seem to be much around. Wonder why? These are the sort of things that public health policy should be guided by, surely? Instead we get rubbish such as this from the CDC. It's only lacking a "Proudly brought to you by Pfizer" intro. It's not credible. Interestingly someone pointed out in comments the obvious, that this is a mortality study between two vaccines, but the "Assist. Prof." said he wasn't aware of any studies showing higher mortality among flu vaccinated people... after just giving a presentation on exactly that lol. The way this is being sold amounts to propaganda. Yet few realize it, wonder why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkVsXOZguLg&ab_channel=MedCram-MedicalLecturesExplainedCLEARLY

 

This is an interesting analysis on lockdowns, which obviously don't save lives (slow down the inevitable though, often referred to as "let it drip") but come at such a huge cost (in almost every way) that the true extent might not be known for decades (if ever).

https://sites.krieger.jhu.edu/iae/files/2022/01/A-Literature-Review-and-Meta-Analysis-of-the-Effects-of-Lockdowns-on-COVID-19-Mortality.pdf

Quote

"Overall, our meta-analysis fails to confirm that lockdowns have had a large, significant effect on mortality rates. Studies examining the relationship between lockdown strictness (based on the OxCGRT stringency index) find that the average lockdown in Europe and the United States only reduced COVID-19 mortality by 0.2% compared to a COVID-19 policy based solely on recommendations"

"Overall, we conclude that lockdowns are not an effective way of reducing mortality rates during a pandemic, at least not during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our results are in line with the World Health Organization Writing Group (2006), who state, “Reports from the 1918 influenza pandemic indicate that social-distancing measures did not stop or appear to dramatically reduce transmission"

 

[ChrLzs]

On 2/5/2022 at 2:02 AM, Horta said:

If you're doubting the data I agree. There doesn't seem to be any reliable data (which is a concern) nor any standardized definitions. China on this graph is obviously bogus, but if it showed reality it would further support my point.

So, to summarise - you don't believe any data (except the few shreds you can find that seem to (out of context) support your viewpoint).

Gotcha.

And you cherry pick a whole pile of statements made by folks mostly back when little was known about how virulent Covid was.

Gotcha.

And you see problems in most health systems across the globe and that political mistakes were made.

Gotcha.

I shall refrain from pointing out which countries seem to do the worst, and why that is.

And I'll also refrain from asking what you are doing - other than whining - to help rectify any of this and improve human behavior/reactions in a crisis..

It's good that your posts are 100% free of solutions, so as not to influence anyone unduly...

[Grim Reaper 6]

On 1/25/2022 at 11:06 AM, Gummug said:

Careful Horta you might be called a liar for saying you had an adverse reaction. Or that it is all in your head. (This actually happened to a lady who had a debilitating reaction to the jab.)

Has there ever been a vaccine in the history of vaccination that didn’t cause some adverse reactions or side effects in segments of the Worlds population?

[Horta]

1 hour ago, ChrLzs said:

 

I shall refrain from pointing out which countries seem to do the worst, and why that is.

And I'll also refrain from asking what you are doing - other than whining - to help rectify any of this and improve human behavior/reactions in a crisis..

It's good that your posts are 100% free of solutions, so as not to influence anyone unduly...

Refrain away, I expected nothing less. I'll need a citation for it though. Lol. Worldwide, there is certainly no correlation between the vaccines and the spread of covid or the mortality rate.

There were solutions based on genuine science, such as the ones put forward (in the hopes of generating discussion) by highly qualified scientists from Oxford, Stanford and Harvard. They were propagandized against straight away with public health officials arranging for hit pieces in the popular media, where it was made political, and they were portrayed as "fringe".  This isn't speculation.

I might start a separate thread about it.

[ChrLzs]

16 minutes ago, Horta said:

Refrain away, I expected nothing less.

Avoid away...  That's three posts in row where you simply snipe and do not actually address content.  You are a tinfoilhatter and will learn nothing here.

 

Anyone else have any questions?  I'm done with stupid.

Edited February 8, 2022 by ChrLzs

[Horta]

2 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

Avoid away...  That's three posts in row where you simply snipe and do not actually address content.  You are a tinfoilhatter and will learn nothing here.

 

Anyone else have any questions?  I'm done with stupid.

Lol.

Yes, one of us has offered nothing of any substance in this thread. Apart from calling "citation" constantly like some broken machine (that are obviously then ignored for the most part). There was that one critique by way of  reminiscence though... of a time spent wowing students with construction industry analogies (who were thoroughly impressed, no doubt). lol again.

Goodbye and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Thankfully there are others in this thread who do manage substantive replies. 

[Horta]

As if to highlight problems with the data, it now looks that around a third of all people forced to quarantine in the UK, were never contagious and were quarantined unnecessarily. The study it is based on has already been linked in this thread.

It's not as though potential problems with this and lack of standardization hasn't been pointed out by academics. Unfortunately this wasn't arrived at via data that is normally publicly available, but by relevant FOI requests.

The data is only as good as the underlying methods used to collect/generate it. As are studies based on it (GIGO).

Quote

"Shambolic" Covid PCR testing rules meant one in three who isolated were never contagious.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/02/04/shambolic-covid-pcr-testing-rules-meant-one-three-isolated-never/