I just started checking into Niatonin theory, as posted on our thread. It appears to be a shared discussion among different peeps so I'll just address my remarks to the general group. One of the early posts I found was this one:
Is Ivermectin for Covid-19 Based on Fraudulent Research?
Gideon M-K; Health Nerd
So I checked out Part 1.
I take issue with Part 1. (more about that in a moment). Further, I take issue with the article posted immediately below Part 1 by the same author.
Covid-19 Vaccines Save Lives. This is not a contentious fact | by Gideon M-K; Health Nerd | Medium
First, he makes the 'causation vs correlation' argument common to our Branch Covidians to disprove concerns over Covid vaccines. He starts by acknowledging VAERS is supposed to be a signal, and in my opinion then goes on to dismiss the signal function entirely.
He seems to double-down, repeating a Covidian talking point:
"This has previously led to things like car accidents being recorded in these systems..."
The CDC gives itself 4 to 6 weeks to vett any new report submitted to VAERS. You can't upload directly (bypass) the CDC. I have spent many hours looking at VAERS resports (specific patient records) and never found any extraneous reports that didn't belong there.
Key isues with VAERS data (withholding large numbers of records, thousands of reports of death following Covid 'vaccination' compared with all other vaccines in VAERS 30 year history) are never mentioned. It doesn't matter whether you argue causation or not (as he does), the 'causation vs correlation' issue existed in prior years as well, so NOTHING explains the extremely disproportionate amounts of adverse events reported post Covid 'vaccination'.
There's JUST SO MUCH evidence of vaccine harm and this author sees ZERO reason concern and endorses Covid vaccines without reservation, before moving on to attack Ivermectin's reputation as fraudulent.
From the Covid article he wrote, "The bottom line here is quite simple — regardless of how you calculate it, if you use the correct figures Covid-19 vaccines are tremendously life-saving. This is not particularly surprising, because vaccines are generally one of the best interventions out there when it comes to cost-benefit as they tend to be so low risk."
So this supposed statistician promotes both the false perception of the 'death toll' of Covid illness and vaunted safety of the Covid 'vaccines'. That's a two-fer.
In my opinion author seizes on nits to pick (e.g., how valid is VAERS ) and denies the existance of anything that contradicts his position. This means he is ignoring the obvious problems and all the experts (Dr. Malone, Dr. Yeadon, Dr. McCullough, Dr. Mikovits, Dr. Tenpenny etc. etc. etc.) and all the other inputs.
He has selected portions of the covid 'vaccine' debate he feels are most vulnerable to criticism, just like our trolls do, and 'sets the table' (what will, and will not form the basis of legitimate opinon) in such a way that far more overwhelming data sources are ignored.
Quoting him, "So it might surprise you that I got a first dose of the Astrazeneca vaccine in April, and I’m getting my second dose today. Ultimately, my nerves are trumped by my knowledge that catching Covid-19 is much more harmful than any of the vaccines that we’ve developed so far."
NO SALE!
In my opinion, this appears to be blatant trolling. Not a good sign for someone putting forth the argument that 1) Ivermectin treatments for Covid is based on fraud and 2) Niatonin is better.
So, back to Part 1 re Niatonin and its implications for use of Ivermectin in the treatment of Covid.
Overall, the author, Gideon M-K; Health Nerd, does the same injustice to the Ivermetcin issue that he does with the vaccine issue. He 'sets the table' to include/exclude information, this time with a flawed Ivermectin study, and pulls it apart, all the while implying he's addressing the central consideration re the use of Ivermetcin in Covid.
In my opinion, the author pretends the true considerations supporting the use of Ivermectin do not exist. There could be 10 flawed studies he could discuss, but what about all the survival? All the hundreds of other studies, even the Nobel prize and the reputations of those who support its use are of more value than the study he makes the centerpiece of his analysis.
The title he gives his analysis is inflammatory (no pun) at a time when citizens all over the world are denied access to appropriate medical treatment.
I reject Part 1 of his analysis, and his Covid vaccine promotion completely. I will look through parts 2 and 3, but I am no longer optimistic because there is something, I believe, intentional behind his opinions that does not bode well.
A research analysis that 'sets the table' with only the weakest data points and excludes all else, while exhorting the safety of Covid vaccines is, in my opinion, at the very least, unethical.