Coronavirus and You - Page 661

On November 14 2022 22:35 evilfatsh1t wrote:

i made a claim on this thread recently about an acquaintance i knew who died after getting her shot. do i have to back this claim up with proof too? would you like me to submit a death certificate and a signed affidavit from her family? get a grip.

also, an explanation as to why it may have been removed has already been given. by the producers. if you dont want to accept their explanation i expect you to have a better reason for doing so other than baseless speculation or judgments about the contents of a video you havent even watched.

anyways im done. sick of explaining simple concepts to brick walls

On November 14 2022 22:33 Symplectos wrote:

Again, those who make a claim, have to prove it. There are several posts trying to find an explanation as to why it might have been removed, and also a few posters even willing to dicuss the content of the video, fact by fact.

Although I guess a fact-based discussion is not as easy as claiming victory in style :

On November 14 2022 19:05 Mikau313 wrote:


That would depend on why it got removed in the first place, which is information we don't have (except for the makers saying it was because of medical misinformation, which they would say regardless of any validity because it fits their narrative).

On November 15 2022 00:27 Razyda wrote:
This is ridiculous.

And you accused BlackJack of arguing in bad faith .



Fully agree. It was Mikau313 who stated:



Effectively accusing producers of lying. Hence he should prove they lied. If you believe otherwise I encourage you to share this opinion in some news outlet with global reach and take your chance in court. You can explain there how it is producer who have to prove they not lying.

On November 15 2022 00:27 Razyda wrote:
This is ridiculous.

And you accused BlackJack of arguing in bad faith .



Fully agree. It was Mikau313 who stated:



Effectively accusing producers of lying. Hence he should prove they lied. If you believe otherwise I encourage you to share this opinion in some news outlet with global reach and take your chance in court. You can explain there how it is producer who have to prove they not lying.

This conversation below is the exact reason why when Razyda posts you need to take it with a grain of salt. Given his posting history there is a strong likely hood that much context and some facts are completely left out to tell the story he wants told. It is basically his calling card.

On November 14 2022 23:52 JimmiC wrote:

Edit: And after a quick google, it appears the movie has been fact checked. Not that it will matter to those who think the science sounds good.

LIMITING SPREAD
CLAIM: “The (COVID) virus is not spread from an asymptomatic person to another asymptomatic person,” said Dr. Peter McCullough, former vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, who was sued for illegitimately representing himself as a Baylor employee while promoting misinformation about COVID-19.

FACT: “More than half of transmissions that occur in our communities are occurring by people who have no symptoms,” said Ajay Sethi, associate professor of population health sciences and faculty director of the Public Health master’s program at UW-Madison. “This is a virus in which people become infectious before the symptoms begin, and for some of those people, the symptoms may never begin, and yet they’re infectious while they’re asymptomatic.”

CLAIM: Dr. Aaron Kheriarty, a former professor in the University of California-Irvine School of Medicine who was fired over his refusal to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and other reasons, said people with “natural immunity,” meaning people who have developed antibodies after contracting a virus, cannot be reinfected with COVID-19 or transmit the virus to others.

FACT: While it is true that people may develop antibodies to a virus like COVID-19, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study released in September found that 36% of those with prior COVID infection did not produce any antibodies.

“You have to survive COVID in order to walk away with some immunity that can be protective for the future, and how long that protection lasts varies from person to person,” Sethi said. He noted the emergence of new variants continues to threaten prior immunity. As stated by the CDC, “reinfections do occur after COVID-19.”



TREATMENT
CLAIM: Johnson claimed the National Institutes of Health has told those who test positive for COVID-19 to “go home and do nothing.”

FACT: “Patients are told to monitor their symptoms, that (if) they progress to a point where they need medical attention, that people should seek medical attention,” Sethi said. The CDC lists certain warning signs of when to seek emergency medical care.

CLAIM: Dr. Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine, said when hydroxychloroquine is used as an early treatment for COVID-19, it can produce a 50% reduced risk of hospitalization and 75% reduced risk of mortality.

FACT: “I’m not sure where that data’s coming from,” Sethi said. “The scientific consensus is that hydroxychloroquine is not a valid treatment for COVID.” Hydroxychloroquine, typically used to treat malaria, was first approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the FDA for treating COVID in March 2020. On June 15, 2020, the FDA canceled its recommendation after finding the medication was unlikely to be effective at treating COVID and resulted in some serious side effects, such as irregular heartbeat, according to the National Library of Medicine.

CLAIM: Dr. Pierre Kory, a vocal advocate for the off-label use of ivermectin, said the drug has been shown to help treat COVID in other parts of the world, claiming it could help “solve” the pandemic.

FACT: When tested in a lab, there was evidence that “the (COVID) virus can be killed by ivermectin, but at such high, toxic levels that they can’t be given to people,” Sethi said. “That just became a myth that ivermectin is something that could be used to treat COVID. It’s not.”

CLAIM: In a press release put out the day after the panel discussion, Johnson said COVID-19 is “an entirely treatable disease. Probably hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives that didn’t have to.”

FACT: Patients have various treatment options for COVID-19. The FDA has approved the antiviral drug remdevisir for use in adults and some pediatric patients and has issued emergency use authorizations for several monoclonal antibody treatments. For those who are hospitalized with COVID-19, the NIH has a set of guidelines for when to administer various treatments.



VACCINES
CLAIM: Parks, the vaccine critic, said Black people may need lower doses of the COVID vaccine because of a sensitivity to mRNA vaccines.

FACT: “I’m sad that such a claim would even be made, because that kind of misinformation is what leads to health disparities in our society,” Sethi said. The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID vaccines are mRNA vaccines.

CLAIM: Many panelists said COVID vaccine development was rushed and they are not safe.

FACT: “I don’t think the process was rushed,” Sethi said. “The only thing that was cut from the process was red tape, but the science that was carried out was the same science that would be carried out with the approval process for any new biologic vaccine or treatment.”



PREACHING TO CHOIR?
David Rapp, a professor of psychology and education at Northwestern University, said Johnson’s COVID-19 panel provides “a good case where someone is trying to offer inaccurate information to a constituency that already would be prone to believe it.”

In addition, advocating inaccurate ideas makes it difficult to have productive debates about what is true or false within the information people receive.

“The way that (the issue is) framed might suggest that the medical community writ large is … less interested in care,” Rapp said. “Framing viewpoints in this way is a really clever and strategic method of getting people to think about who they should rely upon.”

Michael Wagner, a professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at UW-Madison, noted that midterm elections are coming up in November. Johnson recently announced he will run for a third Senate term, and Wagner said he may be trying to make inroads among the most ideologically extreme of his supporters.

“It seems to be more of a way to generate support from the very far right,” Wagner said. “It might be a way to try to generate some kind of grassroots social media support for his untested and unproven theories about the pandemic.”

The producers are the ones making the claim, and you are the one claiming their claim is honest, which is suspect considering they are not the only ones claiming to be the producers, and their video is not honest.

Where exactly did you hear about this "controversy"?

On November 15 2022 00:42 Symplectos wrote:


You are obviously free to think of the scientific method as ridiculous - as after all, God exists - which is fine, as it makes it easier to categorize your claims.

+ Show Spoiler +

And entire discussion about video being censored have nothing to do with scientific method, or science my dude. It is more of an ethical debate. And it is simple as: Producer said something, Mikau313 effectively stated that they may have lied - hence burden of proof lies on Mikau313.

On November 15 2022 01:19 WombaT wrote:
Fucking hell is it just me who’s currently headbutting his keyboard?

Why must every utterance become some Iwo Jima-esque hill that must be defended to the death?

Why are ‘oh I might have jumped the gun there’ or ‘Hm on reflection yeah I was wrong there’ phrases that are seemingly impossible to type out as it pertains to this thread?

On November 15 2022 01:19 WombaT wrote:
Fucking hell is it just me who’s currently headbutting his keyboard?

Why must every utterance become some Iwo Jima-esque hill that must be defended to the death?

Why are ‘oh I might have jumped the gun there’ or ‘Hm on reflection yeah I was wrong there’ phrases that are seemingly impossible to type out as it pertains to this thread?

On November 15 2022 01:30 Symplectos wrote:

You are right. This thread used to be great, with good information about Covid. I apologize if I was part of why it derailed. As I wrote before, I have been reading on TL for ages, but eventually, as a scientist, or just as a person, one just gets too frustrated with the un-scientific (if that is even a word) claims and failed reasoning with inverse logic or whatever it is "they" do.

Maybe one could change the rules of the thread, to only allow discussions with actual verifiable data or links to studies. Or at least make the lecture of Carl Sagan's Demon-Hunted World mandatory before being allowed to see this thread. I know it is off-topic, but the anti-science crowd is just getting more and more frustrating every day, in every aspects of life. At the University, my team and I have sort of given up, and we don't really write summaries of our research papers for the non-scientific community anymore. I guess I just needed to vent. I will refrain from derailing this thread any further.

On November 15 2022 01:19 WombaT wrote:
Fucking hell is it just me who’s currently headbutting his keyboard?

Why must every utterance become some Iwo Jima-esque hill that must be defended to the death?

Why are ‘oh I might have jumped the gun there’ or ‘Hm on reflection yeah I was wrong there’ phrases that are seemingly impossible to type out as it pertains to this thread?

On November 15 2022 01:19 WombaT wrote:
Fucking hell is it just me who’s currently headbutting his keyboard?

Why must every utterance become some Iwo Jima-esque hill that must be defended to the death?

Why are ‘oh I might have jumped the gun there’ or ‘Hm on reflection yeah I was wrong there’ phrases that are seemingly impossible to type out as it pertains to this thread?