Replies

The actuarial data has been looked at and debated here as well. That data show an increase in death but also a large part of that data set was prevaccination roll out with some overlap to the up of vaccination. In other words fhe sensitivity of that data presented and interpreted is not sensitive enough to pick up a single controlled variable.

I tend to agree with you that I would love to see a well designed objective StuffIt to answer the question. Just like everyone else here my observations are strictly anecdotal. While I may have a larger N based on my work, it is still an anecdotal data set.

Nonetheless, my Pavlovian comment is based on the following observations of the sudden death stories posted:

— virtually every time there is zero reference to the cause of death or in more than a few occasions a statement in the article that was either ignored or not read that calls out the cause of death that has nothing to do with vaccination. What ensures is the twisting into a pretzel of logic that somehow infers a vaccination complication.

— when a headline pops up claiming smoking gun data, invariably one reads the entire article and it turns out to be often bad opinion masking as the final authority. Just yesterday such a headline appeared proclaiming final of data beyond a doubt is presented forever demonstrating that COVID vaccinations are killing people by the bazillions. In about the sixth paragraph the truth came out. It was a nurse was interpreting the results of an individual autopsy procured by a family. A post mortum examination she herself was not apparently in attendance.

—the wild ass extrapolations that appear to link everything to COVID vaccinations feels more like the proclamation of fact based on penumbras and shadows instead of any direct evidence.

— as time goes by direct causality is increasingly difficult to assert. Many were saying and continue to say, for example, that cancers causes in many years will be from the vaccination. There are a million factors that make that suspect. For example most people don’t know the directly demonstrable increase incidence of cancer in populations who have received blood transfusions bs non transfusion groups. So if some are going to assert like some bodily do here that cancer incidence is rising (it is not) based on the time frame of COVID vaccination without excluding or at least accounting for groups with known risk factors then it’s garbage data.

As I said yesterday I didn’t use a lot of remdesivir because the data were weak (yes I read the studies on the drug as it emerged). It was never much more than weakly favorable but in my observations the renal injury incidence risk outweighed the benefits. I also routinely excluded it as a treatment if there were renal dysfunction when this was considered to be a relative not absolute contraindications. It was nof unlike ivermectin. I used a lot of ivermectin in treatment of the critically ill early in the thought that it was useful. Of the cases I used it on, only one patient that was tenuous turned around. When I reviewed the course of care retrospectively there were some other things that were equally as compelling as the explanation for turn around. By the time it became a hot topic many of us had moved on. I treated a of people with ivermectin early in the disease course particularly with delta. It simply did not stop progression particularly in the high risk.

I am more than open to data which may demonstrate something that leads to a data driven conclusion. It’s why I have at this point stopped recommending vaccinations. The data clearly show COVID was a generic shift that created a pandemic. It has settled back down to a mild and highly transmissible disease. The risks of widespread vaccination are about equal to the benefits. Thus my opinion is vaccination os not necessary. But choosing to be vaccinated is just that a choice. Some people perform the risk benefit analysis and decide to vaccinate. But as I have said since day one no vaccination nor treatment should ever be compelled. But like so many other data points some attack me erroneously as wanting mandated vaccine. They become offended when others point this out.

I suspect in the final analysis the most abused thing in this whole pandemic was objectivity and I think social media and instant access by everyone to millions of people by anyone with a cell phone an internet connection. Sadly this causes echo chambering because people will tend to gather with like minded people and the internet neatly silos people into those groups without trying. And when there is numbers of people once can become convinced there is normalcy. It is a hell of a dilemma for the truth to work its way through these barriers.

Nailed it.

There’s lots of close minded people that are what I call intellectually “brittle”. They won’t read or watch anything that might be at conflict with their worldview.

This has been an issue with journalists and the media. Some of the more recent masking and vaccination studies have been completely ignored by media outlets. NPR is a good example of this.

Actually, the internet, or more precisely social media, did not tend to group people together unless they were for the shots.Anyone who lauded Hydroxycholorquine/Axithromycin/Zinc or Ivermectin/Doxycycline/Zinc as an early onset treatment was erased from the web on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube, as well as other platforms. That censorship was not done for our benefit,when if there was reason to doubt, a discussion of that reason would have been more appropriate.

Zelenko explained his strategy in the HCQ/Zithromax/Zn regimen. Zinc was known to be effective in vitro and in vivo against SARS. HCQ acted as an ionophore delivering Zn ions into the epithelial airway cells and Type I pneumocytes, where it would interfere with viral replication, and the regimen was to be initiated at the first onset of symptoms, even without waiting for confirmation. Apparently that worked, he had only a handful of hospitalizations out of 800 patients. IVM/Doxy/Zn was a similar deal, only IVM apparently interferes with the virus docking at the ACE II attachment point as well.

With either regimen, however, greatest efficacy would be had with early treatment.

Unfortunately, patients with early (noncritical) symptoms were sent home to get sicker, and then admitted.

Most of the studies on either regimen were conducted on critical or ICU patients, after admission, which gave the bug a week or two of head start—not indicated for successful treatment.

Those same studies did not administer the macrolide antibiotics in most instances (macrolide antibiotics have an idiopathic effect of muting immune response, preventing cytokine storm), and never included zinc supplementation.

Noting that a primary dietary source of zinc is red meat, and that the most vulnerable populations (elderly in assisted living facilities or nursing homes) have been told to “eat healthy”, with diets emphasizing fish and fowl as protein sources, it falls to reason that those populations are already somewhat deficient in zinc, and administering the ionophore without the zinc would not have the desired effect.

I question the construction of those studies,because giving only one part of a tripart regimen would be likely to discredit the regimen, something that frankly seems either intentional or scientifically incompetent.

With the combination of incomplete regimens and later stage administration of that fraction, I would expect results to be subpar.