NIH Medical Journal Article Shatters Mainstream Covid Narratives

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.

All 10, and 17 thousand doctors.

globalcovidsummit.org...

Or 17,000 people with access to the Internet...

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

All 10, and 17 thousand doctors.

globalcovidsummit.org...

Or 17,000 people with access to the Internet...

You can stay in denial as long as you want, but a lot of people are waking up, and your tactics aren't working.

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

You think your tactics are working?!!!!!!!

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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.

All 10, and 17 thousand doctors.

globalcovidsummit.org...

Or 17,000 people with access to the Internet...

You can stay in denial as long as you want, but a lot of people are waking up, and your tactics aren't working.

Denying Bull# claims, yep will stay there thanks.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

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 .

Ok, I played along with you but this is over now. I showed you a peer reviewed document, the first one I found, that indicated roughly 30% reduction in mortality and, as I indicated, that was just one study on one drug which is more than enough reason to suspect that more treatments with more drugs would achieve greater results. If you think I am going to invest enough time and energy to find sources that equate to precisely 80% reductions in mortality you SERIOUSLY overestimate your value to me or anyone else on these forums.

I didn't use the article cited in the original paper because you obviously distrust it, so I went outside that paper to an alternate source not part of the original paper so you would not object. Now you are complaining because I used date from a different yet reputable source instead of the source you are whining about.

I think the bottom line is you are going to whine and complain regardless of what anyone says or shows you because you went all in too early and cant back it up now.

OP said the original was peer reviewed. That seems to be a deal breaker for you. Yay you. I look at the bigger picture, I perform due diligence, I learn. I saw something in the original article that said mortality rates could have been reduced with early treatment protocols. I investigated that and found it to be true. I am not going to sit here niggling over exactly what percentage was achieved, and especially not when I am fully cognizant of the fact that results can and do vary but are still considered repeatable if within an accepted range with minimal outliers.

If you require that degree of precision - DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH. Don't just sit here denying it until someone proves it to you. No one owes you anything. FFS

You really sound like an fb fact checker... "You said 80 but its only 30 - everything is a lie, everything is a lie. Waaaaaaa..."

BTW, the original article said "up to", not exactly 80%. Someone as invested in precision accuracy should have noticed that... I guess that precision only applies when its convenient, huh....

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

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 asked the same simple question, phrased very slightly differently, in three consecutive posts. Your responses each time, which did not answer the question, nor even supply any specific verifiable facts or sources, were the change of topic.

I already addressed that this appeared to be mostly opinion. As I said, nothing I read is inaccurate

But based upon what?

My impression was that Blacklock was simply restating the baseless opinions of others he agrees with. He has not presented hard evidence, or even new argument.

He has presented specific numbers to support his argument, numbers that disagree with official figures, but no-one seems to be able to identify the source or veracity of Blacklock's numbers.

To my way of seeing things, it seems highly likely that Blacklock, or some other source he is using, simply made those numbers up, which means his case presented is based upon fiction and emotional appeal.

Your belief that "nothing you read" from Blacklock's opinion piece "was inaccurate", and in absence of any actual verifiable proof, is just your belief. It is groundless - a fiction that you like to tell yourself.

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.

If you could provide a clear credible source for Blacklock's numbers, you would support both his, and your, arguments and would 'win' this debate point. Simple!

Where did Blacklock source the numbers he quotes, and are they credible?

a reply to: Vroomfondel

Yes accuracy is important which is why using a paper not referenced in the article which gives a completely different figure, isnt really supporting the claims made in the article.


Last time i checked posting on ATS was optional. If you are finding having a discussion with people with different opinions that difficult maybe this site, or possibly the Internet, isn't the place for you.

BTW no 'up to' here

He has published his results in peer reviewed journals, reporting an 80% reduction in hospitalizations and a 75% reduction in deaths by using early treatment.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: Ksihkehe
a reply to: Ksihkehe

And who is currently letting 10s of thousands of undocumented disease vectors into our country per month?

If these people are coming into the country illegally, they are not being 'let in' by officials. Your emotive appeal self-contradicts.

As I understand things, people who are granted asylum, or a visa, legally, are supposed to be tested: A Proclamation on Suspension of Entry as Immigrants and Nonimmigrants of Certain Additional Persons Who Pose a Risk of Transmitting Coronavirus Disease 2019 - Whitehouse.gov

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.

But the 'border policy COVID-19 testing issue' is not entirely true. Lack of testing has occurred, but only because of the people who were supposed to be doing the testing did not do as they were supposed. It wasn't due to policy and wasn't a dictate from the top.

You're delusional. You cannot compare a tiny island

Actually, several islands (more than 700), and here's a map of NZ to scale superimposed on the US.

with a giant country of 350 million. Mitigation isn't the same.

Other large countries with land based borders don't have the issues that the US is supposed to be having? Also doesn't seem to be issue with the northern border, either. But any reasonable excuse works, I'll allow it.

In both countries, by far, the majority of migration is via airports. Also, under the previous administration, there were almost no restrictions upon US citizens flying out, or returning from disease ridden countries. It's like they thought that Americans can't carry disease!

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.

The only people actually collecting and compiling all the data are called into doubt, and the people doubting them have no basis in fact for doing so. They have no actual credible data to argue from.

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.

Or, those who disagreed with actual credible data are rabid kooks who would hold the same views whatever the truth was.

I have blamed Trump for everything he did during the pandemic.

I don't put all the blame on Trump. I blame far more on those who would not take ANY reasonable precautions against a spreading deadly disease. Who grouped together in super-spreader numbers to protest, or to support the candidacy of their favored imbecile. Who effectively defiantly sabotaged the efforts of authorities and other concerned citizens, Who denied the dangers of the disease, and especially those who urged other gullible people to do the same.

The rot also occurred here in NZ, Prior to the "protests" we had new cases of about 10 per day. After the protest ended we had daily new infections of over 20,000! Almost everyone else was locked-down, social-distanced, and masked-up (something that had eliminated the outbreaks here three times previously), most were also vaccinated by then, so who was the cause? It requires large numbers of people doing the wrong thing to achieve these sort of rates of infection. Here's some of these people and the banners they are flying. Here, in New Zealand, where it is politically irrelevant! These people have caused the deaths of others for that?

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 am putting blame on the perpetrators.

I never said it wasn't real once. You're numbers are unreliable because we now know the were dishonest with their reporting.

How COULD you know they were dishonest? Sure, they made mistakes, which they admitted and corrected. You couldn't possibly know their if their motivation was to be dishonest, or was just trying to be as factually correct as possible with unclear or incomplete source data.

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.

In April 2020, the CDC revised is COVID-19 reporting rules to remove such ambiguity.

... edit due to post length limit ...

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

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

originally posted by: daskakik
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.

Believe as you wish. My Pops attended 8 colleges. That's right, eight. He went to school to become a doctor. A Bacteriologist, Chemist, Microbiologist, Parasitologist, Engineer, Attended Stanford, Sf state, UCLA, Oregon State, UC Davis, LA City college, UCLA, and San Joaquin Delta. The schools he attended, put him in charge of their labs and payed him. He was convinced that the US Gov was tracking him due to his high test scores. He made the headlines in Northern California, when he received one of the first of 3 small chips Intel produced, long before anyone had a PC, and built a computer around it. It ran on a paper floppy drive, he got from an Air force base, just like the first space shots ran on. It hit the headlines in the color Sunday paper. Stockton Record, in the 70s
He became Director of Research of fortune 500 company. He is also Royalty from the Ottoman Empire. Unlike me he is very humble, and never discusses what Im telling you here. He has been summoned to meet with Congressional leaders, rode their underground train, Summoned to a private meeting with a US Vice President, and the Secretary of Agriculture. He was sent over seas by our government on a mission to drum up trade between the Us and Germany. He smuggled Bibles into Russia in 1970 and walked past armed troops holding rifles in a church and proceeded to pass out Bibles written in Russian, passing them under the pews, to poor Russians that only had bible verses written on small slips of paper.

Bottom line: He was very pro vaccine his whole life. To the point, that when I questioned Mercury in vaccines, in the past, he became angry. He is mostly an emotionless man. Not unlike Mr. Spock on Star Trek. He told me about the many people who suffered from polio, and that I didn't understand.
This all changed in 2020 with the introduction of MRNA therapy injections. He called My sisters and I and asked that we not receive any. Are you clear on what Im telling you? You think this is lies? As a Christian, I am not allowed to lie at all.

Ive just disclosed more then I ever have on here. Believe what you want, or believe the truth.

a reply to: ScepticScot

I explained why I used that paper. And yes, it does support the claim in the original article. It proves that mortality rates can be lowered by using early treatment protocols. The original article speculates, operative word, that mortality rates could be lowered by up to 80%. I showed you one article showing test results from one study on one drug that resulted in a roughly 30% reduction in mortality. The claim was early treatment protocols reduce mortality. The test proved early treatment reduced mortality. If you want to argue that you are just being willfully ignorant.

BTW no 'up to' here

Reading comprehension....

BTW, the original article said "up to", not exactly 80%.

The original article said it, I just paraphrased.

And lastly, its not having a discussion with people of differing opinions that is difficult. Its dealing with a childish obsession with niggling minutia meant to supplant intelligent discourse.

I cant make it any more simple than this: the article said early treatment protocols could result in up to an 80% reduction in mortality. I showed you one study of one drug that achieved a roughly 30% reduction in mortality. The study I quoted was on one drug and one only. It is illogical to assume the drug used in that study is the only one that will ever achieve any degree of efficacy. Therefore, it can safely be assumed that a greater variety of drugs equate to a greater cumulative reduction in mortality.

Will that cumulative reduction reach 80%? Perhaps. It could even surpass it. We won't know until we try.

Now, before you do it I will subvert your response. No, accuracy is not niggling minutia. But arguing that one detail at the expense of all other potential is. My point all along has been that among all the many points made in the original article I found one particularly interesting - the use of early treatment protocols to reduce mortality rates. You didn't like the cited references so I found another one. You then complained because that one wasn't one of the ones you already complained about. (Nice circular bs you have going there)

Many statements were made in that article. The truth is you have no idea how many of them are true. I suspect you haven't researched a single one. I did, and I found evidence suggesting the statement is possible. I did my due diligence. What have you done?

There is no way that any article with Tenpennny or Mercola was “peer reviewed “.

a reply to: chr0naut

I told you I didn't read the article multiple times and I have no idea where he got them. I don't even know what numbers you're asking about.

I'm not reading the rest of your post. I doubt it addresses anything and is just a further attempt to distract from the very true statement in the article that you don't care for.

There was and continues to be an unprecedented attack on doctors, citizens rights, and science.

I guess you've all avoided reading the vaccine trial docs. They did all this because they were engaging in fraud and they needed to silence the people calling them on it. It's unbelievable people can be this far in and not see that this was not above board.

a reply to: visitedbythem
What does any of that have to do with members on ATS not checking the source of a thread before flagging and starring?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: visitedbythem
What does any of that have to do with members on ATS not checking the source of a thread before flagging and starring?

I supplied a better source. Better then you will ever find on here. Got a question, let me know, an Ill get a real answer for you from a scientist who has real answers. who will tell the truth

Lol, cannot offer a decent rebuttal so you just start attacking everyone and everything. If you got something solid, give us some real, substantial sauce, ..attacks right out of the gate are just so boring and frankly quite suspect. Yawn. a reply to: LordAhriman

originally posted by: visitedbythem
I supplied a better source. Better then you will ever find on here. Got a question, let me know, an Ill get a real answer for you from a scientist who has real answers. who will tell the truth

Alright, ask this scientist why members of ATS didn't check the source this thread is based on?

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: LordAhriman
Russell Blaylock... once apparently a brilliant neurosurgeon, retired to become a homeopathic snake oil salesman, works for Newsmax, anti-vaxxer, has also written articles about chemtrails.

Next.

The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

It's not a peer reviewed paper, it's a republished Op-ed from an open access website which accepts opinion pieces without them having to pass the same rigor as scientific articles so long as they're on topic.

If you look at the sources that this article they're almost all opinion pieces on non peer reviewed platforms.

What we're seeing here is the opinion of someone, not peer reviewed science.

originally posted by: vkey08
There is no way that any article with Tenpennny or Mercola was “peer reviewed “.

It's a republished opinion piece from SNI, an open access website that allows you to publish op-eds.

It's not a scientific paper.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

OP said the original was peer reviewed. That seems to be a deal breaker for you.

It's not a peer reviewed scientific paper, it's a republished opinion piece that was uploaded from SNI, an open access website with a community based review system.

SNI allows the publication of op-ed, so we're not looking at a scientific paper that's been rigorously scrutinized by experts in the field, we're looking at one person expressing their views on the subject.

Put simply, peer review scientific papers don't include links to bitchute videos and articles on Rumble.

If you were to submit a paper to me for review that used sources like this I'd send it back to you and tell you to find a scholarly source, or at the very least to site the original data on which the bitchute video is supposed to be based.