NIH Medical Journal Article Shatters Mainstream Covid Narratives

a reply to: LordAhriman

This place is done for.

Why are you defending mRNA vaccines? those that i know so far had only taken one or two, refuse to take anymore.

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: LordAhriman
You are criticizing those who are questioning the vax in the filed of science as anti vaxer?

Yes. All 10 of them.

I went to the website to read the article and felt something was off. So i selected the disclaimer that was attached to the article:

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Note that this article does not reflect the beliefs of the NIH or the federal government. Very important to consider everything, especially disclaimers, before jumping to conclusions and state that the NIH wrote and endorsed this article. The article simply reflects the opinion of the guy who wrote it.

a reply to: visitedbythem
No, LordAhriman is right, stars and flags because the title posits something that isn't true and nobody bothered to check before up-voting.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0
With all due respect, there is no need to argue the content of the article when the post is merely pointing out the actions of the members who starred and flagged without carrying out their due diligence.

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: LordAhriman
You are criticizing those who are questioning the vax in the filed of science as anti vaxer?

Yes. All 10 of them.

This is literally a battle of good versus evil. We will use your avatar to determine who is who.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: LordAhriman
You are criticizing those who are questioning the vax in the filed of science as anti vaxer?

Yes. All 10 of them.

This is literally a battle of good versus evil. We will use your avatar to determine who is who.

Come on, he's not THAT good.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: LordAhriman
You are criticizing those who are questioning the vax in the filed of science as anti vaxer?

Yes. All 10 of them.

This is literally a battle of good versus evil. We will use your avatar to determine who is who.

Come on, he's not THAT good.

Are you going to provide feedback to counter the argument?

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: chr0naut
And who is currently letting 10s of thousands of undocumented disease vectors into our country per month? Let's be honest about how much impacts what policies have. The border policy is the biggest contradiction in the whole thing and there is no reasonable justification for it.

You're delusional. You cannot compare a tiny island with a giant country of 350 million. Mitigation isn't the same. A big problem here is that opinions are being conflated with facts. Rather than accepting there are a range of acceptable opinions based on the data, they sought to manipulate the data and say opinions were misinformation. Instead of arguing merits they wanted to be authoritarians. They knew people would oppose their draconian policies. So, they just made science a dogma riddled parody of what it's supposed to be.

I have blamed Trump for everything he did during the pandemic. What the hell is it on ATS with people that are unsatisfied when I agree with them? Are we so sensitive and needy that people have to take a knee and concede the entirety of your opinion or is it really just that your position is not holding up to time?

I never said it wasn't real once. You're numbers are unreliable because we now know the were dishonest with their reporting. Five years maybe, maybe never. Somebody would need the will and legal ability to audit all these deaths with an honest approach to COD versus a positive test and dead from cancer or some other disease.

You can talk all day, but say nothing.

You can say how great they did, but you're forgetting we have better numbers now and we know it was preposterously overblown. Kids were not dying from COVID in any significant numbers and we introduced a dangerous new technology to fight it without a honest and transparent process. The document release has proven they were fudging the numbers and were extremely biased by overblown and emotionally charged rhetoric from the very people who are supposed to be unbiased scientists.

Saying the "best they can do" is also inaccurate because it's observably not true. The best options were out there and were being called disinformation. If they had allowed discussion, which is that actual "best they could do", we wouldn't be here. The best they could do would have been to not dismiss early intervention, prophylaxis, and open discussion.

This being "the best they can do" is the perfect example of why vaccine mandates are an unacceptable policy. They moved to mandate vaccination when they now acknowledge they were wrong. There was no preponderance of evidence. The science was never settled. Their fact checking and misinformation policing was opinions rather than supported facts.

I have been blowing you and many others out of the water on this for two years. The data has confirmed virtually everything I said. The more that times goes on the more this argument is going to be about things other than the "data" and "science" I expect, because the real science and data don't bend to political and social pressure.

You're now being a revisionist with this "best they could do at the time" because if it was the best they could do they all deserve to be removed. Their best was consistently worse than the "anti-science" people being silenced and illegally targeted by the establishment. Further, in my country at least, when there is uncertainty you do not immediately move to use the most oppressive and damaging tools to mitigate it. Feel free to vote in people that will in yours.

All in all, the chickens are coming home to roost.

But still, where did Blacklock get the numbers he quotes?

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: nugget1
skepdic.com...

That was written 7 years ago.

The article states he retired from his career as a neurosurgeon, so I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that since he retired he no longer possess any medical knowledge, or what?

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: ScepticScot
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

OP made a claim and showed his sources.

Now you are making a claim, but you don't need sources or proof?

I am sick of people making all kinds of claims and hiding behind "It doesn't work that way."

Yes, it does work that way. In fact, that is the ONLY way this works at all. If you can demand proof from the OP to defend his claim then OP can demand proof of you to debunk it.

We can't take the word of the OP but we don't dare question yours?

Bwaahahaahahaaaaaahahaha

If someone is making a claim it is up to them to provide evidence to support it. If they can't or won't then Hitchen's Razor applies and it can be dismissed without evidence

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

It upset his feels on the matter...none of this was foreign to anyone with w brain cells left to rub together...

a reply to: LordAhriman

Are you actually that dumb or just playing the part...cause I've seen you show more intelligence...

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: chr0naut
And who is currently letting 10s of thousands of undocumented disease vectors into our country per month? Let's be honest about how much impacts what policies have. The border policy is the biggest contradiction in the whole thing and there is no reasonable justification for it.

You're delusional. You cannot compare a tiny island with a giant country of 350 million. Mitigation isn't the same. A big problem here is that opinions are being conflated with facts. Rather than accepting there are a range of acceptable opinions based on the data, they sought to manipulate the data and say opinions were misinformation. Instead of arguing merits they wanted to be authoritarians. They knew people would oppose their draconian policies. So, they just made science a dogma riddled parody of what it's supposed to be.

I have blamed Trump for everything he did during the pandemic. What the hell is it on ATS with people that are unsatisfied when I agree with them? Are we so sensitive and needy that people have to take a knee and concede the entirety of your opinion or is it really just that your position is not holding up to time?

I never said it wasn't real once. You're numbers are unreliable because we now know the were dishonest with their reporting. Five years maybe, maybe never. Somebody would need the will and legal ability to audit all these deaths with an honest approach to COD versus a positive test and dead from cancer or some other disease.

You can talk all day, but say nothing.

You can say how great they did, but you're forgetting we have better numbers now and we know it was preposterously overblown. Kids were not dying from COVID in any significant numbers and we introduced a dangerous new technology to fight it without a honest and transparent process. The document release has proven they were fudging the numbers and were extremely biased by overblown and emotionally charged rhetoric from the very people who are supposed to be unbiased scientists.

Saying the "best they can do" is also inaccurate because it's observably not true. The best options were out there and were being called disinformation. If they had allowed discussion, which is that actual "best they could do", we wouldn't be here. The best they could do would have been to not dismiss early intervention, prophylaxis, and open discussion.

This being "the best they can do" is the perfect example of why vaccine mandates are an unacceptable policy. They moved to mandate vaccination when they now acknowledge they were wrong. There was no preponderance of evidence. The science was never settled. Their fact checking and misinformation policing was opinions rather than supported facts.

I have been blowing you and many others out of the water on this for two years. The data has confirmed virtually everything I said. The more that times goes on the more this argument is going to be about things other than the "data" and "science" I expect, because the real science and data don't bend to political and social pressure.

You're now being a revisionist with this "best they could do at the time" because if it was the best they could do they all deserve to be removed. Their best was consistently worse than the "anti-science" people being silenced and illegally targeted by the establishment. Further, in my country at least, when there is uncertainty you do not immediately move to use the most oppressive and damaging tools to mitigate it. Feel free to vote in people that will in yours.

All in all, the chickens are coming home to roost.

But still, where did Blacklock get the numbers he quotes?

Ah, a change of topic I see. No contest on the other things I said. Noted.

I already addressed that this appeared to be mostly opinion. As I said, nothing I read is inaccurate but I don't feel like reading the article. I've been following this for a long time, I don't need to look up every detail and have it sourced to verify what I already know.

I'm not arguing in bad faith. I know things have devolved onto ATS where we reduce large complicated arguments into childish questions, but I'm not playing that with you. You do fine enough arguing in bad faith without adding new skills to your repertoire.

This tactic, in particular, is a good way to tell people you don't have an argument without admitting you don't have an argument.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: ScepticScot
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

OP made a claim and showed his sources.

Now you are making a claim, but you don't need sources or proof?

I am sick of people making all kinds of claims and hiding behind "It doesn't work that way."

Yes, it does work that way. In fact, that is the ONLY way this works at all. If you can demand proof from the OP to defend his claim then OP can demand proof of you to debunk it.

We can't take the word of the OP but we don't dare question yours?

Bwaahahaahahaaaaaahahaha

If someone is making a claim it is up to them to provide evidence to support it. If they can't or won't then Hitchen's Razor applies and it can be dismissed without evidence

I am fully aware of the razor rule. OP made a claim that may or may not be true. In philosophy you can apply the razor to your hearts content. In the real world the absence of proof is not, in and of itself, proof of anything. (think ufo's) That concept should mean more here than anywhere else on Earth. This is a conspiracy site, a site dedicated to that which is plausible but lacks proof. If everyone used the razor rule on everything there would be no such thing as a conspiracy.

You claim the paper was not peer reviewed. My question is: Does that mean there is nothing true in the entire paper? The answer is no, it doesn't. For example, the paper states that up to 80% of covid deaths could have been prevented with early treatment protocols. The lack of peer review does not change whether that statement is true or false. It affects nothing but your comfort zone in accepting that information.

If the body of the paper, the idea that government, big pharma, etc, all worked together to pull this scam on the people is true, then having the paper peer reviewed would be meaningless anyway. The peers could be bought and paid for just like the politicians.

My point is that there is much information in that paper. The majority of it may be true or may not. The absence of peer review is not proof of anything. If, to you, that means ignore the paper in its entirety then go ahead and do that. To me it only means due diligence is necessary, no more and no less.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: ScepticScot
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

OP made a claim and showed his sources.

Now you are making a claim, but you don't need sources or proof?

I am sick of people making all kinds of claims and hiding behind "It doesn't work that way."

Yes, it does work that way. In fact, that is the ONLY way this works at all. If you can demand proof from the OP to defend his claim then OP can demand proof of you to debunk it.

We can't take the word of the OP but we don't dare question yours?

Bwaahahaahahaaaaaahahaha

If someone is making a claim it is up to them to provide evidence to support it. If they can't or won't then Hitchen's Razor applies and it can be dismissed without evidence

I am fully aware of the razor rule. OP made a claim that may or may not be true. In philosophy you can apply the razor to your hearts content. In the real world the absence of proof is not, in and of itself, proof of anything. (think ufo's) That concept should mean more here than anywhere else on Earth. This is a conspiracy site, a site dedicated to that which is plausible but lacks proof. If everyone used the razor rule on everything there would be no such thing as a conspiracy.

You claim the paper was not peer reviewed. My question is: Does that mean there is nothing true in the entire paper? The answer is no, it doesn't. For example, the paper states that up to 80% of covid deaths could have been prevented with early treatment protocols. The lack of peer review does not change whether that statement is true or false. It affects nothing but your comfort zone in accepting that information.

If the body of the paper, the idea that government, big pharma, etc, all worked together to pull this scam on the people is true, then having the paper peer reviewed would be meaningless anyway. The peers could be bought and paid for just like the politicians.

My point is that there is much information in that paper. The majority of it may be true or may not. The absence of peer review is not proof of anything. If, to you, that means ignore the paper in its entirety then go ahead and do that. To me it only means due diligence is necessary, no more and no less.

The claim in the OP was that this was a peer reviewed article that 'shattered mainstream covid narrative'

Instead it's a opinion piece , by someone with a history of Igoring medical evidence, using unreliable sources that may or may not back up his claims.

It doesn't mean every single claim he makes is incorrect, but it does mean the claim made by the OP is incorrect.

For example have you looked at the source listed for the 80% claim?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: ScepticScot
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

OP made a claim and showed his sources.

Now you are making a claim, but you don't need sources or proof?

I am sick of people making all kinds of claims and hiding behind "It doesn't work that way."

Yes, it does work that way. In fact, that is the ONLY way this works at all. If you can demand proof from the OP to defend his claim then OP can demand proof of you to debunk it.

We can't take the word of the OP but we don't dare question yours?

Bwaahahaahahaaaaaahahaha

If someone is making a claim it is up to them to provide evidence to support it. If they can't or won't then Hitchen's Razor applies and it can be dismissed without evidence

I am fully aware of the razor rule. OP made a claim that may or may not be true. In philosophy you can apply the razor to your hearts content. In the real world the absence of proof is not, in and of itself, proof of anything. (think ufo's) That concept should mean more here than anywhere else on Earth. This is a conspiracy site, a site dedicated to that which is plausible but lacks proof. If everyone used the razor rule on everything there would be no such thing as a conspiracy.

You claim the paper was not peer reviewed. My question is: Does that mean there is nothing true in the entire paper? The answer is no, it doesn't. For example, the paper states that up to 80% of covid deaths could have been prevented with early treatment protocols. The lack of peer review does not change whether that statement is true or false. It affects nothing but your comfort zone in accepting that information.

If the body of the paper, the idea that government, big pharma, etc, all worked together to pull this scam on the people is true, then having the paper peer reviewed would be meaningless anyway. The peers could be bought and paid for just like the politicians.

My point is that there is much information in that paper. The majority of it may be true or may not. The absence of peer review is not proof of anything. If, to you, that means ignore the paper in its entirety then go ahead and do that. To me it only means due diligence is necessary, no more and no less.

The claim in the OP was that this was a peer reviewed article that 'shattered mainstream covid narrative'

Instead it's a opinion piece , by someone with a history of Igoring medical evidence, using unreliable sources that may or may not back up his claims.

It doesn't mean every single claim he makes is incorrect, but it does mean the claim made by the OP is incorrect.

For example have you looked at the source listed for the 80% claim?

I'm getting the title changed, so you can ignore that. Cherry pick much?

So now you're down to arguing one point out of 100's. Not off to a great start are we?

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: ScepticScot
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

OP made a claim and showed his sources.

Now you are making a claim, but you don't need sources or proof?

I am sick of people making all kinds of claims and hiding behind "It doesn't work that way."

Yes, it does work that way. In fact, that is the ONLY way this works at all. If you can demand proof from the OP to defend his claim then OP can demand proof of you to debunk it.

We can't take the word of the OP but we don't dare question yours?

Bwaahahaahahaaaaaahahaha

If someone is making a claim it is up to them to provide evidence to support it. If they can't or won't then Hitchen's Razor applies and it can be dismissed without evidence

I am fully aware of the razor rule. OP made a claim that may or may not be true. In philosophy you can apply the razor to your hearts content. In the real world the absence of proof is not, in and of itself, proof of anything. (think ufo's) That concept should mean more here than anywhere else on Earth. This is a conspiracy site, a site dedicated to that which is plausible but lacks proof. If everyone used the razor rule on everything there would be no such thing as a conspiracy.

You claim the paper was not peer reviewed. My question is: Does that mean there is nothing true in the entire paper? The answer is no, it doesn't. For example, the paper states that up to 80% of covid deaths could have been prevented with early treatment protocols. The lack of peer review does not change whether that statement is true or false. It affects nothing but your comfort zone in accepting that information.

If the body of the paper, the idea that government, big pharma, etc, all worked together to pull this scam on the people is true, then having the paper peer reviewed would be meaningless anyway. The peers could be bought and paid for just like the politicians.

My point is that there is much information in that paper. The majority of it may be true or may not. The absence of peer review is not proof of anything. If, to you, that means ignore the paper in its entirety then go ahead and do that. To me it only means due diligence is necessary, no more and no less.

The claim in the OP was that this was a peer reviewed article that 'shattered mainstream covid narrative'

Instead it's a opinion piece , by someone with a history of Igoring medical evidence, using unreliable sources that may or may not back up his claims.

It doesn't mean every single claim he makes is incorrect, but it does mean the claim made by the OP is incorrect.

For example have you looked at the source listed for the 80% claim?

I'm getting the title changed, so you can ignore that. Cherry pick much?

So now you're down to arguing one point out of 100's. Not off to a great start are we?

Pointing out the entire permise of your thread is wrong isnt cherry picking.

It was vroom who picked tje 80% claim, it's your own thread please try and follow it.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: ScepticScot
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

OP made a claim and showed his sources.

Now you are making a claim, but you don't need sources or proof?

I am sick of people making all kinds of claims and hiding behind "It doesn't work that way."

Yes, it does work that way. In fact, that is the ONLY way this works at all. If you can demand proof from the OP to defend his claim then OP can demand proof of you to debunk it.

We can't take the word of the OP but we don't dare question yours?

Bwaahahaahahaaaaaahahaha

If someone is making a claim it is up to them to provide evidence to support it. If they can't or won't then Hitchen's Razor applies and it can be dismissed without evidence

I am fully aware of the razor rule. OP made a claim that may or may not be true. In philosophy you can apply the razor to your hearts content. In the real world the absence of proof is not, in and of itself, proof of anything. (think ufo's) That concept should mean more here than anywhere else on Earth. This is a conspiracy site, a site dedicated to that which is plausible but lacks proof. If everyone used the razor rule on everything there would be no such thing as a conspiracy.

You claim the paper was not peer reviewed. My question is: Does that mean there is nothing true in the entire paper? The answer is no, it doesn't. For example, the paper states that up to 80% of covid deaths could have been prevented with early treatment protocols. The lack of peer review does not change whether that statement is true or false. It affects nothing but your comfort zone in accepting that information.

If the body of the paper, the idea that government, big pharma, etc, all worked together to pull this scam on the people is true, then having the paper peer reviewed would be meaningless anyway. The peers could be bought and paid for just like the politicians.

My point is that there is much information in that paper. The majority of it may be true or may not. The absence of peer review is not proof of anything. If, to you, that means ignore the paper in its entirety then go ahead and do that. To me it only means due diligence is necessary, no more and no less.

The claim in the OP was that this was a peer reviewed article that 'shattered mainstream covid narrative'

Instead it's a opinion piece , by someone with a history of Igoring medical evidence, using unreliable sources that may or may not back up his claims.

It doesn't mean every single claim he makes is incorrect, but it does mean the claim made by the OP is incorrect.

For example have you looked at the source listed for the 80% claim?

Yes I have.

The quoted statistic is from Dr. Peter McCullough, listed in a peer reviewed paper on the subject of early treatment mortality rates, as one of the peer review investigators. The study found as follows:

Conclusions
Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 included in this cohort study, the risk of in-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission compared with patients whose treatment did not include early use of tocilizumab. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding, and further research from randomized clinical trials is needed. Such trials are currently under way.

This is the first peer reviewed paper that I checked. McCullough is qualified to comment based on his findings as an investigator and has dozens of his own peer reviewed papers. I am not going to review each and every one for you. If you are that intent on proving it wrong, I suggest you do your own research. This was just one study on one drug used in an early treatment protocol that reduced mortality by nearly 1/3. That is more than enough reason to suspect that the overall mortality rate could be reduced by considerably more using broader early treatment protocols, or as article claims, up to 80%.

It is also worth noting that these "early treatments" in this instance are considered "early" due to being used in the first two days of admission to an ICU. The original paper calls for early treatment prior to hospitalization, which, imo, would further reduce the mortality rate.

link

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: ScepticScot
a reply to: Oldcarpy2

OP made a claim and showed his sources.

Now you are making a claim, but you don't need sources or proof?

I am sick of people making all kinds of claims and hiding behind "It doesn't work that way."

Yes, it does work that way. In fact, that is the ONLY way this works at all. If you can demand proof from the OP to defend his claim then OP can demand proof of you to debunk it.

We can't take the word of the OP but we don't dare question yours?

Bwaahahaahahaaaaaahahaha

If someone is making a claim it is up to them to provide evidence to support it. If they can't or won't then Hitchen's Razor applies and it can be dismissed without evidence

I am fully aware of the razor rule. OP made a claim that may or may not be true. In philosophy you can apply the razor to your hearts content. In the real world the absence of proof is not, in and of itself, proof of anything. (think ufo's) That concept should mean more here than anywhere else on Earth. This is a conspiracy site, a site dedicated to that which is plausible but lacks proof. If everyone used the razor rule on everything there would be no such thing as a conspiracy.

You claim the paper was not peer reviewed. My question is: Does that mean there is nothing true in the entire paper? The answer is no, it doesn't. For example, the paper states that up to 80% of covid deaths could have been prevented with early treatment protocols. The lack of peer review does not change whether that statement is true or false. It affects nothing but your comfort zone in accepting that information.

If the body of the paper, the idea that government, big pharma, etc, all worked together to pull this scam on the people is true, then having the paper peer reviewed would be meaningless anyway. The peers could be bought and paid for just like the politicians.

My point is that there is much information in that paper. The majority of it may be true or may not. The absence of peer review is not proof of anything. If, to you, that means ignore the paper in its entirety then go ahead and do that. To me it only means due diligence is necessary, no more and no less.

The claim in the OP was that this was a peer reviewed article that 'shattered mainstream covid narrative'

Instead it's a opinion piece , by someone with a history of Igoring medical evidence, using unreliable sources that may or may not back up his claims.

It doesn't mean every single claim he makes is incorrect, but it does mean the claim made by the OP is incorrect.

For example have you looked at the source listed for the 80% claim?

Yes I have.

The quoted statistic is from Dr. Peter McCullough, listed in a peer reviewed paper on the subject of early treatment mortality rates, as one of the peer review investigators. The study found as follows:

Conclusions
Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 included in this cohort study, the risk of in-hospital mortality was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission compared with patients whose treatment did not include early use of tocilizumab. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding, and further research from randomized clinical trials is needed. Such trials are currently under way.

This is the first peer reviewed paper that I checked. McCullough is qualified to comment based on his findings as an investigator and has dozens of his own peer reviewed papers. I am not going to review each and every one for you. If you are that intent on proving it wrong, I suggest you do your own research. This was just one study on one drug used in an early treatment protocol that reduced mortality by nearly 1/3. That is more than enough reason to suspect that the overall mortality rate could be reduced by considerably more using broader early treatment protocols, or as article claims, up to 80%.

It is also worth noting that these "early treatments" in this instance are considered "early" due to being used in the first two days of admission to an ICU. The original paper calls for early treatment prior to hospitalization, which, imo, would further reduce the mortality rate.

link

That doesn't support the claim of a 75 to 80% reduction at all.

The claims in the article seem to be either supported by joke sources or complete misrepresentation of what the sources actually say.


ETA That also isn't the paper linked to in the opinion piece on support of his claim .

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: vNex92
a reply to: LordAhriman
You are criticizing those who are questioning the vax in the filed of science as anti vaxer?

Yes. All 10 of them.

All 10, and 17 thousand doctors.

globalcovidsummit.org...