NIH Medical Journal Article Shatters Mainstream Covid Narratives

Not sure where the claim it's an NIH journal or peer reviewed status comes from - it's a very dodgy predatory journal that's online only with an emphasis of publishing as quick as possible instead of an emphasis on accuracy or proper peer review.

There's a good history of why it's so dodgy here and all the scandals of fake peer review process: Right-Wing Brain Surgeons: The Case of Surgical Neurology International

Baylock previously published a paper in SNI claiming:

The collectivists not only seek to destroy Judeo-Christian beliefs but also are aggressively altering the church from inside so that it too becomes a voice of egalitarian collectivism, that is, the new world order [...] in being blinded to the real truth, we are building the gallows of our own civilization.

It has absolutely nothing to do with neurology, brain surgery or science it's just political spin that has no place in proper scientific journals.

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.

It's government policy in the EU and US, so these tactics are actually really effective.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I agree entirely.

My point from the start has been that just because this is not a peer reviewed paper does not mean it is incapable of truth. It only means that in the absence of peer review I need to perform my own due diligence, which I try to do anyway.

There are many good points raised in the article. One held particular interest for me regarding reducing the mortality rate using early treatment protocols. My initial research indicated that it was in fact possible to reduce the mortality rate with early treatment, something that has not been implemented by authorities as a preferred treatment plan.

I am not going to ignore the article in its entirety due to the lack of peer review. In short, I do not ignore potential facts just because I don't like the source. As I said earlier, even the National Inquirer told the truth once in a while.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: AaarghZombies

I agree entirely.

My point from the start has been that just because this is not a peer reviewed paper does not mean it is incapable of truth. It only means that in the absence of peer review I need to perform my own due diligence, which I try to do anyway.

There are many good points raised in the article. One held particular interest for me regarding reducing the mortality rate using early treatment protocols. My initial research indicated that it was in fact possible to reduce the mortality rate with early treatment, something that has not been implemented by authorities as a preferred treatment plan.

I am not going to ignore the article in its entirety due to the lack of peer review. In short, I do not ignore potential facts just because I don't like the source. As I said earlier, even the National Inquirer told the truth once in a while.

It's not so much that the document isn't peer reviewed, it's that it is an Op-ed, not a research paper. It's the opinion of the writer, who sources their opinions form fringe sources.

While I have no intrinsic problem with people in general doing their own reading and their own research, when it comes to Covid there are a lot of bad sources out there which sound plausible or authoritative, but which either cherry pick their data or provide false data, and which depend on people not fully understanding statistics or biology in order to fool them. So it's possible to do your own research and to come away less educated, not more.

A good example of this is that prior to the pandemic most people knew little or nothing about mRNA. What it was, what it did, and what it cannot do. So it was easy for unscrupulous people to spread misinformation about it. Like claiming that it can alter your genetic makeup. Which it can't do because mRNA lacks the ability to inject its own code into the nucleolus of a cell.

We saw a lot of people talking about things like "shedding", or ignoring the fact that the vax naturally breaks down inside your body, before being flushed out by natural processes, or people banking on the public not understanding that anti-body levels naturally decline when a threat is over, and the build back up again if the same threat is present again.

I often use the phrases "even a broken clock is right twice a day", but that means that for most of the rest of the time it's wrong.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
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?

The text I quoted was from the original article. The reading comprehension failure seems to get yours

The article makes specific claims about a specific doctor. You can't claim that is accurate by quoting a different paper, by different researchers, that says a completely different % using a different treatment, that says itself isn't conclusive and requires further analysis.

No one is claiming you can't reduce the mortalituly rate from covid. So picking a paper that may show a treatment may do so in now way validates the claims made in this article.

No one is even disputing that some of the ponts in the article may be even correct, but that doesn't change that its a conspiracy minded opinion piece, making a number of false or misleading claims, that seems to be primarily sourced from YouTube videos, alternative medicine sites and anti vaxers.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: AaarghZombies

I agree entirely.

My point from the start has been that just because this is not a peer reviewed paper does not mean it is incapable of truth. It only means that in the absence of peer review I need to perform my own due diligence, which I try to do anyway.

There are many good points raised in the article. One held particular interest for me regarding reducing the mortality rate using early treatment protocols. My initial research indicated that it was in fact possible to reduce the mortality rate with early treatment, something that has not been implemented by authorities as a preferred treatment plan.

I am not going to ignore the article in its entirety due to the lack of peer review. In short, I do not ignore potential facts just because I don't like the source. As I said earlier, even the National Inquirer told the truth once in a while.

It's not so much that the document isn't peer reviewed, it's that it is an Op-ed, not a research paper. It's the opinion of the writer, who sources their opinions form fringe sources.

While I have no intrinsic problem with people in general doing their own reading and their own research, when it comes to Covid there are a lot of bad sources out there which sound plausible or authoritative, but which either cherry pick their data or provide false data, and which depend on people not fully understanding statistics or biology in order to fool them. So it's possible to do your own research and to come away less educated, not more.

A good example of this is that prior to the pandemic most people knew little or nothing about mRNA. What it was, what it did, and what it cannot do. So it was easy for unscrupulous people to spread misinformation about it. Like claiming that it can alter your genetic makeup. Which it can't do because mRNA lacks the ability to inject its own code into the nucleolus of a cell.

We saw a lot of people talking about things like "shedding", or ignoring the fact that the vax naturally breaks down inside your body, before being flushed out by natural processes, or people banking on the public not understanding that anti-body levels naturally decline when a threat is over, and the build back up again if the same threat is present again.

I often use the phrases "even a broken clock is right twice a day", but that means that for most of the rest of the time it's wrong.

Fringe sources, aka big pharma/cdc funded studies riddled with conflict of interest. Like that?

a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Fringe sources like random people off of bitchute and Rumble whose conflicts of interest include the need to generate clicks and ad revenue.

As for the CDC, I'm afraid that you're going to need to elaborate on that one, or are you are you referring to all of those affiliate links to companies selling Kale smoothies on Fauci's homepage, or his connections to big-homeopathy ... no, wait, that's "somebody" else, isn't it.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

I understand what you are saying and I find no fault in it. Although, much of what the so-called experts and organizations have said is either misinformation or outright lies. So it gets difficult to believe any of it from any source. And that is why I don't ignore something just because of the source of references. In other words, I trust this op-ed every bit as much as I trust anything I hear from fauci, which is to say not much. But I give it a shot anyway.

The other part of truth vs. misinformation is that from the very start of this so-called pandemic the data has been shrouded in doubt. The numbers coming from China, the affect of lock downs, the efficacy of masks, etc. None of it was/is really factual or trustworthy. Yes, there is truth in there somewhere, but finding it is the issue, as with all of this.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Well you know, when the main narrative is full of lies it's hard not to look at other peoples perspectives to try to find the truth. I just feel sorry for those who keep getting boosters not realizing how crappy of a product it is. It can't even hold what little effectiveness it has for more than a week but hey, to each their own, they can keep injecting them self for all i care. whatever makes them sleep better i guess.

originally posted by: nugget1

Russell Blaylock is a trained neurosurgeon who considers himself an expert on nutrition and toxins in food, cookware, teeth, and vaccines. Contrary to the vast bulk of the scientific evidence, Blaylock maintains that vaccines such as the H1N1 vaccine are dangerous or ineffective; that dental amalgams and fluoridated water are harmful to our health; and that aluminum cookware, aspartame, and MSG are toxic substances causing brain damage.1, 2, Ironically, Blaylock perpetuates the myth that science-based medicine is not interested in prevention, despite the fact that immunization, which he opposes, prevents more disease and saves more lives than just about any other medical activity.

Blaylock has retired from neurosurgery and has taken up a career opposing science-based medicine and promoting pseudoscience-based medicine and supplements that he sells under the label Brain Repair Formula. He suggests that his supplements can treat and prevent such diseases as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. He asserts that his formula "will maximize your brain’s ability to heal and reduce inflammation." The rest of the scientific community seems oblivious to these claims, which are not based on large-scale clinical trials. Blaylock also sells hope to cancer patients by encouraging them to believe he has found the secret to prevention and cure.5

Now, who would benefit most from destroying his reputation? That MO seems to be if you can't refute the evidence with facts, destroy the messengers' credibility.

Not everybody thinks filling our bodies with artificial chemistry and GMO frankenfood is going to be without consequences. We have bastardized nature with our quest to perfect what is already perfect, and are now in direct conflict with the natural order of our planet.

skepdic.com...

Point, Set, Match!

We have a logic winner in this corner. Logic fails attacking the messenger even though they have not addressed the facts. Elephants live with them in the room and they avoid getting squashed for now.

originally posted by: jidnum
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Well you know, when the main narrative is full of lies it's hard not to look at other peoples perspectives to try to find the truth. I just feel sorry for those who keep getting boosters not realizing how crappy of a product it is. It can't even hold what little effectiveness it has for more than a week but hey, to each their own, they can keep injecting them self for all i care. whatever makes them sleep better i guess.

A lot of the time the main narrative isn't even saying those things. That's something that someone else claims that it said, but which it didn't.

Look at all of the people on this site screaming that we were promised that the vax would be 100 percent effective against Covid and that social distancing would end over night, when the actual mainstream narrative said pretty much the opposite, that the vax wasn't some kind of magic spell that would keep covid away, it merely reduced the symptoms.

Now this post is a fine piece of logic that fits the facts to a T.
Thank you for so eloquently explaining it to one who will never ever get it IMO. However, it is not lost on the lurkers that your post is solid gold.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: LordAhriman

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0
The article is peer reviewed and everything he said is cited. Attack the argument not the messenger. Who are you again?

He used himself as a source multiple times, and you consider this credible?

The other things you mentioned are correct. I don't know under what circumstances Natural News could possibly be cited in peer review unless it was to illustrate some point, certainly not for sourcing actual data.

Sourcing yourself isn't against any rules, especially in niche or cutting edge science. It's natural that you're interests and research build on previous work. It gets to be a red flag the more self citations are used.

I don't see anything in the OP that isn't factually accurate, but I have no interest in doing the whole article. It doesn't look like he's saying anything I didn't already know except for his opinion.

I don't have to find him credible if he's saying things I've already verified as being accurate. That speaks to his credibility. His opinion on the unprecedented attack on science, doctors, and citizens, is entirely accurate and reflects what tens of thousands of us have been saying all along. Why can appointed people with no clinical experience be making these decisions and recommendations for billions of people?

Gates has essentially acknowledge in an interview that the pandemic, based on what he and all the other top COVID experts said to do, was mismanaged from start to finish. Would it really be surprising to you that this was mismanaged when it was officials, administrators, bureaucrats, and people with no clinical experience making sweeping decisions based on ... opinions? That's what all this was, their opinions, which will always a skew toward authoritarianism and suppression of dissent.

Who was the top guy in government at the time when all this governmental mismanagement was occurring?

The top guy in our government hasn't appeared to be the one making policy, rather a loosely connected network of unscrupulous people with hidden agendas and lots of conflicts of interest. They astroturfed the planet and told everybody who disagreed they were bad people... because they disagreed with what we now know, and I did for two years, terrible anti-science opinions.

The leader in my country or yours? You know the answer to both.

Since you're unable to contest the facts, which I've been telling you for two years, you want to invoke Trump like a care. I don't care and have blamed Trump for much of it. Just because you're emotionally caught up in your politics and your team doesn't mean I am.

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: v1rtu0s0

Not wishing to throw a spanner in the works, but where did Blacklock get his statistical data from if he is in disagreement with the officially compiled numbers?

Ask the CDC and all the other government agencies who have, increasingly, revised their own incorrect data. Once the data sets are released, if transparent, that data can be further processed with statistics. If you paid attention to the methodologies that were used for a number of the official data sets you'd see they were often not the best tools, rather whatever gave them the results most favorable to support their authoritarian violations of human rights

originally posted by: LordAhriman
34 stars and 40 flags for an opinion piece from a whackjob, and a lying title.

This place is done for.

What have you done to prove your point as the others asked you to do?

Oh I know,, grumble. Well, we are not convinced based on your data.

originally posted by: daskakik

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?

I star and flagged it on purpose despite the claim because the data rings true as you know too.

I can hardly disagree extraordinary claims require extraordinary results. Enthusiasm for the truth allows one to overstep in honesty, but you must be honest and restore the facts. The facts are our Governments hurt people overstepping in their honesty and we have them caught in their on BS. There is no doubt. If you defend it now, with no doubt in sight that they are out to destroy society and "useless eaters", then you are one of them. Hear it now, and believe it later it is true science coming right at us.

a reply to: Justoneman
It is strange how people so easily miss the point. I wasn't asking members to explain why they might have done it.

The question was rhetorical because despite the many accomplishments of visitedbythem's dad he wouldn't be able to answer, which is why I also asked earlier what his education and life experience have to do with the flagging and starring habits of ATS members.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: jidnum
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Well you know, when the main narrative is full of lies it's hard not to look at other peoples perspectives to try to find the truth. I just feel sorry for those who keep getting boosters not realizing how crappy of a product it is. It can't even hold what little effectiveness it has for more than a week but hey, to each their own, they can keep injecting them self for all i care. whatever makes them sleep better i guess.

A lot of the time the main narrative isn't even saying those things. That's something that someone else claims that it said, but which it didn't.

Look at all of the people on this site screaming that we were promised that the vax would be 100 percent effective against Covid and that social distancing would end over night, when the actual mainstream narrative said pretty much the opposite, that the vax wasn't some kind of magic spell that would keep covid away, it merely reduced the symptoms.

Rewriting history I see.

They, and you, made the claims about the vaccines efficacy. They changed the definition. Always a good sign your product roll out isn't doing well when you have to redefine the product. You have not deviated from the official narratives and, we now know, they've been full of deception from the start.

They lied about 95%, period. It wasn't a mistake it was a lie. In the capacity it was used for approval it was also fraud. The pie in the sky optimism is not them being hopeful, it is negligence. It was a multi-billion dollar payday versus their integrity and the money won.

They said two weeks to stop the hospitals from being overtaken. It was never claimed to be anything but a temporary tool. It was a lie.

I went through the old threads stretching back two years yesterday and I am prepared to start reminding you and several others who said what. Seems several have forgotten. The lies above don't even scratch the surface of how much garbage you peddled as science and how feverishly you rushed to excuse the fraud.

I'm tired of the historical fiction being bandied about this board. It's all become revisionist bs because the wheels have come off. You have been wrong often and I could not find a single case where any of you "trust the science" proselytizers acknowledged the dozens of times you were incorrect on what was "settled science". I think somebody should remind you all. Maybe remind the people reading that might be thinking to themselves they misremember how wrong you were, especially given your seemingly unshaken confidence in these threads. Even I doubted, but then I went back and read. We aren't misremembering anything.

a reply to: nugget1

"Russell Blaylock is a trained neurosurgeon who considers himself an expert on nutrition and toxins in food, cookware, teeth, and vaccines."

That's all you need to read really..

He "considers himself" an expert...

Bahahahahaha..

PA

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: nugget1

"Russell Blaylock is a trained neurosurgeon who considers himself an expert on nutrition and toxins in food, cookware, teeth, and vaccines."

That's all you need to read really..

He "considers himself" an expert...

Bahahahahaha..

PA

Shhhh, go get your 15th booster just so you can get covid again anyway.

originally posted by: v1rtu0s0

originally posted by: PerfectAnomoly
a reply to: nugget1

"Russell Blaylock is a trained neurosurgeon who considers himself an expert on nutrition and toxins in food, cookware, teeth, and vaccines."

That's all you need to read really..

He "considers himself" an expert...

Bahahahahaha..

PA

Shhhh, go get your 15th booster just so you can get covid again anyway.

I'm not an anti-vaxer, nor a pro-vaxer; what I am is someone who can- and is willing- to consider ALL of the information available to us. What I see is some very suspect information coming from both sides, which I will continue to consider- as well as the source it comes from.
Unreliable sources have carried truth, just as reliable sources have carried lies.

I view all 'experts' with the same cynical eye I view all politicians.

8.10.2022 FYI

In ultra-liberal Seattle Washington, Anthony Fauci, a HERO of liberals everywhere is BOO'ed loudly at a Seattle Mariners baseball game.

Source: www.breitbart.com...

Slowly, everyone on the planet is starting to understand that Anthony Fauci may be partially responsible for the +5 million global Covid-19 deaths, due to his "experiments" in Wuhan, China.