Treatment versus Vaccine

Remove this Banner Ad

LV: Wastes his time on the internet trolling and putting people down for kicks.

Also LV: Wonders why he's not learning anything.
I'm not intentionally putting people down.

I'm absolutely being critical of the arguments presented though, but that's almost solely due to the fact that I'm so disappointed that nothing has been raised that is any good.
 
So you also blaming an engineer who creates aeroplanes for a poor pilot who stuffs up and crashes their plane?
Like I say, what difference is there? You're either defending an inept institution or and inept industry.
 

Log in to remove this ad.


Interesting that 'Trends in Internal Medicine' is part of the SciVision publishing. Seems like SciVision is regarded in many quarters as a predatory journal.

Predatory publishing (also write-only publishing[1][2] or deceptive publishing[3]) is an exploitative academic publishing business model that involves charging publication fees to authors without checking articles for quality and legitimacy, and without providing editorial and publishing services that legitimate academic journals provide, whether open access or not. The phenomenon of "open access predatory publishers" was first noticed by Jeffrey Beall, when he described "publishers that are ready to publish any article for payment".[4]

Note that Beall himself lists SciVision on his list of predatory journals.

Plus, you can easily tell by the tone and language of the article: this is not how a real scientist writes a professional scientific paper.
 
Not sure, don't have that detail. This was sent to me by an MD though who is certainly not anti vax so to speak. He is from the US however and does have an opinion on these particular vaccines though.

Classen appears to have some interesting views on vaccines. I'm not sure I'd be taking statements he makes on them at face value.
 
I think there's a growing number questioning a number of details surrounding these particular vaccines. That was always going to happen as we slowly gathered more data on what has been an acknowledged rushed development and release without any medium or long term studies.
There is some concern, at some very well qualified levels, around just what these particular vaccines are doing. It would be nice if we happened to find equivalent or near equivalent hospitalisation reduction options for treatment from well studied existing possibles.
 
I think there's a growing number questioning a number of details surrounding these particular vaccines. That was always going to happen as we slowly gathered more data on what has been an acknowledged rushed development and release without any medium or long term studies.
There is some concern, at some very well qualified levels around just what these particular vaccines are doing. It would be nice if we happened to find equivalent or near equivalent options for treatment from well studied existing pharmaceuticals.

Research Square is a multidisciplinary preprint platform developed and operated by a company of the same name. The platform allows researchers to share their work early, gain feedback, and improve a paper before submission to a journal. Preprints are preliminary reports that have not undergone peer review.


For someone who's "not anti-vax" you sure have made some very unlucky choices in the articles you select. Known associates of anti-vaxxers, predatory journals, non peer-reviewed papers.......
 

Now this article appears to be a meta-analysis, summarising and collating data from other papers. Okay, fair enough.

Except....

In one recent meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics that found ivermectin greatly reduced COVID-19 deaths4, the Elgazzar paper accounted for 15.5% of the effect.

The Elgazzar paper was withdrawn from publication due to allegation of plagiarism, data manipulation, and "ethical concerns".

I'm not saying the AJT paper itself is ethically dishonest, but it's a summary of the literature, and one paper it takes significant data from is the withdrawn and apparently discredited Elgazzar paper.

You really have had some shocking luck with your article selection. You might want to check up on these people who keep forwarding them to you.
 
Another one.

ABOVE: © ISTOCK.COM,
BEIJINGSTORY

The editors of Frontiers in Pharmacology have taken down an article about the use of the antiparasitic drug ivermectin in COVID-19 patients. The paper, which was written by members of an organization called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), had been provisionally accepted and posted in abstract form by the journal in January, but was ultimately rejected this Monday (March 1). The editors determined that it contained unsubstantiated claims and violated the journal’s editorial policies.

Not sure these are the guys I'd be trusting to quote Satoshi Omura accurately or correctly interpret any study he did, given they've been outed several times for false and misleading claims.
 
Ah psychological invalidation. It really is simpler to avoid learning things you may not wish to consider by simplistic grouping rather than actually genuinely weighing any single content. I think the really intelligent can analyse actual content and not fall into the lower IQ inabilities of group identity dismissal.

You're the one posting all these dodgy papers, not me. Perhaps you should try to 'analyse actual content'?

At the very least, do a 2 minute google search to confirm these papers aren't all being withdrawn, removed for lack of scientific integrity, not saying what you claim them to say, or being published in predatory non-peer reviewed journals.
 
For some it doesn't matter what data, information or expert qualification exists. None will suffice unless it corresponds with their existing ideology and psychological invalidation.

Maybe stop sourcing questionable studies, from questionable sources?

Question; Oxford University is doing a trial on Ivermection. One of the most respected academic institutions in the world.

Why are the FLCCC who are extremely pro Ivermectin, against the trial?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

For some it doesn't matter what data, information or expert qualification exists. None will suffice unless it corresponds with their existing ideology and psychological invalidation.
I agree.

I suggest the people forwarding you these papers may indeed have an existing ideology and psychological invalidation that they need to correct. I'd be starting to seriously ask them some questions if I were you.
 
Last edited:
 
Maybe stop sourcing questionable studies, from questionable sources?

Question; Oxford University is doing a trial on Ivermection. One of the most respected academic institutions in the world.

Why are the FLCCC who are extremely pro Ivermectin, against the trial?
What is happening with that trial that was the one I was interested in
There just doesn’t seem like there is a definitive answer on dosage other than you need to take a ridiculously high amount to have a benefit
But I was hoping the Oxford trial might clear it up
 
So effectiveness going from 90% to 64% is a good thing, how?

You know you can concede the vaccine isn’t doing as well as predicted and still see them as a valuable tool.
Imagine when we get our 685th booster shot, I reckon those numbers will skyrocket.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Treatment versus Vaccine

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top