COVID-19 vaccines: medical concerns and recommendations

[ER_STL]

Ah, Brett is now digging up ol’ Tess Lawrie. And it looks like she is back at her old tricks of trying to turn non-peer reviewed garbage into a bullshit meta-analysis.

Here’s the deal, Tess and some of her pals pooled together a bunch of published and non-peer reviewed data to create a bullshit meta-analysis. The problem with a meta-analysis is that it’s only as strong as the studies behind it. Well, all of the high-quality studies of ivermectin suggest no benefit, and only the smaller studies or ones with methodological concerns suggest a small benefit. Of course, an unscrupulous scientist can skew the impact of the weaker studies by ignoring their bias. It is a big clue that the drug probably doesn’t work when the well conducted studies show no benefit. However, that is not the real reason for why it’s bullshit - that comes from the fact that they falsified their conflict of interest statement by claiming they had no competing interests. In reality, all of the authors are members of a European ivermectin interest group called BIRD that is dedicated to spreading ivermectin around the globe as if it were Mormonism or some shit. Yeah, it’s kind of important when the scientists studying a drug are members of the drug’s cult. However, that’s not a problem for journals that nobody reads like The American Journal of Therapeutics (Impact Factor of 2.6) that is willing to publish this garbage.

If you want a meta-analysis of ivermectin and covid, then here: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance...iab591/6310839
This on come from Clinical Infectious Disease (Impact Factor of 8.3)

And this is why there is so much distrust and confusion today. It's becoming increasingly difficult to get accurate information on just about any issue, topic or concern. I'd have to spend thirty minutes across five different sites on the Internet just to get to get a recipe for a PB&J sandwich that I'd trust.

[Yung]

https://www.vice.com/en/article/n7bd...-covid-vaccine

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/novava...ry?id=78265207

[Maple Syrup Actual]

Ah, Brett is now digging up ol’ Tess Lawrie. And it looks like she is back at her old tricks of trying to turn non-peer reviewed garbage into a bullshit meta-analysis.

Here’s the deal, Tess and some of her pals pooled together a bunch of published and non-peer reviewed data to create a bullshit meta-analysis. The problem with a meta-analysis is that it’s only as strong as the studies behind it. Well, all of the high-quality studies of ivermectin suggest no benefit, and only the smaller studies or ones with methodological concerns suggest a small benefit. Of course, an unscrupulous scientist can skew the impact of the weaker studies by ignoring their bias. It is a big clue that the drug probably doesn’t work when the well conducted studies show no benefit. However, that is not the real reason for why it’s bullshit - that comes from the fact that they falsified their conflict of interest statement by claiming they had no competing interests. In reality, all of the authors are members of a European ivermectin interest group called BIRD that is dedicated to spreading ivermectin around the globe as if it were Mormonism or some shit. Yeah, it’s kind of important when the scientists studying a drug are members of the drug’s cult. However, that’s not a problem for journals that nobody reads like The American Journal of Therapeutics (Impact Factor of 2.6) that is willing to publish this garbage.

If you want a meta-analysis of ivermectin and covid, then here: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance...iab591/6310839
This on come from Clinical Infectious Disease (Impact Factor of 8.3)

You're the first person I've encountered who had prior knowledge of Tess Lawrie so can I ask you: prior to this, was she already seen as a bit unreliable?

I listened to her interviewed the other day and being as she's an apparently legitimate source, credential-wise, I was fairly interested until the last few minutes when she started talking about the group she's in that you mention, at which point all my BS detectors went off and I began to wonder: did you do this research, then join this group? Or were you an Ivermectin advocate, who did research that just happened to support your pre-existing beliefs?

Just the way you phrase "digging up ol' Tess Lawrie" I'm assuming you were familiar with her and her work from before covid? Was she already a bad source of info, would you say?




I totally agree with the people who say that this experience has been super frustrating from a layperson's research perspective, because SOME information has clearly been suppressed...by the very people who run the tools I would usually use to research this. I don't know if I can trust google's search results anymore. I don't know to what degree the information that counters the narrative is being suppressed so it's hard for me to tell if "failure to appear in a major journal" is indicative of an actual data problem, or if it's "man, nobody can touch this right now, just stick with the program."

That's why I was so happy to read your account of "where the fuck are they" in regards to the vaccine reactions (not that I ever really thought there were reactions at all comparable with covid risks). I don't trust the research tools available to me, but I trust in your range of experience in terms of what you and other people in your field that you trust are seeing.



So if you knew all about Tess Lawrie before this and seeing her name brought up is, for you, a moment where you go "yeah, of course they brought that crank in" then to me that's pretty much the tipping point on Bret Weinstein and his position. I'm a huge believer in skepticism (lol) but just because something is counter-narrative doesn't mean it's right. Lab leak, OK, pretty sure that was always right, and it was suppressed. But not everything the people who suppressed it are pushing would have to be wrong just because that probably was.

So...long post...executive summary:

Could you maybe give a quick rundown on Tess Lawrie from the perspective of pre-covid you, if that makes sense?

[45dotACP]

Double tap

[45dotACP]

A couple of points that I believe may undermine your analysis. First, the original trials of the mRNA vaccine boasted a whopping 0.3% serious adverse outcome rates. While that may seem shockingly high, it was identical to placebo - yes, a saline injection had a 0.2% serious adverse event rate. That is because the studies are required to go overboard in describing adverse events to the point that a case of appendicitis was logged as a vaccine serious adverse event. The CDC is doing the same now.

Second, you are comparing unequal outcomes. A serious vaccine event that rarely if ever results in death or permanent organ dysfunction is nothing comparable to a disease that uncommonly but significantly results in death or permanent organ dysfunction. For example, the are still 10 patients in my ICU with severe COVID; 5 are on CRRT, 3 are on ECMO, and 2 are college age. There are 2 kids in our PICU with COVID or lingering COVID complications. There are no cases, not one, in my hospital for a serious adverse vaccine reaction. I do not know an intensivist who can say they have managed a significant number of vaccine complications despite us vaccinating 162 million people. On the other hand, every intensivist that I know has taken care of a few early twenty cases.

Bottomline, we have immunized half the population. Where the fuck are all these serious vaccine reactions? If they exist, they ain’t coming to my ICU or any of my colleague’s shops.

I feel like this post needs to be bumped.

I too, have not yet seen a "serious COVID vaccination effect".

Zipped the bag on more than a few unvaccinated dudes younger than myself though. And sure, they had comorbidities, but hey, this is America y'all. You let out a fart in church and one of the people who smells it will be someone with an underlying health condition.

Never seen a single vaccinated person hospitalized for a vaccine side effect. My sister had the worst side effects I've ever seen and was aching/sore for a month or two. But I shudder to think how she would have done with COVID. I am grateful to never need find out.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[MickAK]

Bottomline, we have immunized half the population. Where the fuck are all these serious vaccine reactions? If they exist, they ain’t coming to my ICU or any of my colleague’s shops.

I'll preface this by saying I think the only concern with the various Covid vaccines is they may not work as good as people hope and distributing them this widely could be a bad idea.

That's a disingenuous way to talk about serious vaccine reactions, especially with a new vaccine. Whether SV40 causes a higher rate of cancer in humans or not is still debated. What isn't is that it could and millions had vaccines contaminated with it.

It's interesting to see people tear down others advocating magic covid beans because their data is shit then claim certainty with the same flaws in their own.

[Sensei]

You're the first person I've encountered who had prior knowledge of Tess Lawrie so can I ask you: prior to this, was she already seen as a bit unreliable?

I first became aware of her when she hooked up with America’s Frontline Doctors which is the group that included that crazy, alien DNA doctor named Stella Immanuel (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stella_Immanuel). Their founder’s past times also include storming the Capital. Most of us ignored Tess Lawrie until a couple of months ago when she started claiming that the covid vaccines were dangerous and shouldn’t be used in humans.

Tess Lawrie aside, my question to members of this forum is why would anyone trust anything that comes out of Brett Weinstein’s mouth. Keep in mind that this is a guy who is a liberal Democrat and became famous when the nuts at Evergreen State ran him out of the asylum for being too white. Those students were his own Frankenstein’s monster that he helped to create, but nobody cares about that. Apparently, being not radical enough for Evergreen State is enough street creds in conservative circles as long as he backs their anti-vax conspiracies.

[Maple Syrup Actual]

I can't speak for anyone else but personally I wouldn't TRUST anything he says but he has a legitimate claim on evolutionary biology knowledge and the fact that he's politically really different from me doesn't bother me when he's talking about evolutionary biology, which I think is interesting so I started listening to his podcast a couple of years ago. I think I heard him talking to Sam Harris, who I also don't agree with, but who also has some interesting ideas, so I listen to him too. That's where I ran across the guy, anyway.

I wouldn't agree with lots of stuff he might think but I don't need to agree with people on everything and I don't really use their political allegiances to sort them on topics not directly related to political stuff.

I would never think "Bret Weinstein says the vaccine is bad so it's bad."

But I can totally see why anyone might say "Bret Weinstein had a point about bat evolution in the context of this virus that really makes sense."

Tess Lawrie, I don't know anything about beyond her claimed credentials, so it's really hard for me to say "as a layperson, this MD-PHD who allegedly does meta-analysis for the WHO is just some whack job."

That's why I was hoping you had maybe run across her in 2015 or something and she'd been kicked off of WHO study status and everyone in the business knows this, something like that. If she was a crank pre-covid, it's easy to sort.

If her crank status doesn't begin until after ivermectin...man, then how as some dude with no MD, no PHD, half a boat and a history of pretty well-earned distrust of groups like the WHO, am I supposed to tell the difference between Chicken Little, and Pompeii's only vulcanologist?

It's hard. It's very hard to tell if someone notices something real, that conflicts with something dominant. That's the problem that I think a lot of skeptics have here.

[45dotACP]

I'll preface this by saying I think the only concern with the various Covid vaccines is they may not work as good as people hope and distributing them this widely could be a bad idea.

That's a disingenuous way to talk about serious vaccine reactions, especially with a new vaccine. Whether SV40 causes a higher rate of cancer in humans or not is still debated. What isn't is that it could and millions had vaccines contaminated with it.

It's interesting to see people tear down others advocating magic covid beans because their data is shit then claim certainty with the same flaws in their own.

They work as well as I thought they would.

Just my experience...I went from working in a 36 bed medical ICU to working in a 72 bed COVID ICU. We often had to stack two intubated patients to a room so the engineering department retrofitted the unit to take two patients per room...what fun.


This time last year and we were damn near full. We opened five COVID specific units in my hospital and carried a census of 100+ COVID patients this time last year. The HCQ/AZT/ZN that was being used was ineffective based off data our intensivists had collected and researched of their own accord. Our findings were well in line with those of the scientific community.

I did education and data collection on COVID management and oxygenation strategies. I've seen the raw data myself.

This year, we have less than ten COVID patients on the hospital. All of them are unvaccinated people.

So...what changed? Decadron? Remdesivir? My badass strategies to prevent intubation?

Occam is over here shaking his head and saying "bitch please" because OF FUCKING COURSE it was the vaccine. The key difference made by the vaccine is the reduction of critical illness and our only critically ill COVID patients are unvaccinated. No judgement...some folks can't get it, some folks think Bill Gates is trying to microchip them, others are worried it'll make them sick in the long run.

I've seen exactly three fully vaccinated patients in the COVID ICU over the past year and a half. Two of whom were on anti-rejection meds for organ transplant and one of whom was HIV+ and it was later determined they did not have COVID, but actually Pneumocystis pneumonia common in AIDS.

There is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between the data being presented for the efficacy/safety of Ivermectin/HCQ/Zinc/whatever other bullshit and the efficacy/safety of the vaccinations for COVID. That data ain't even sort of the same. And it plays out in the real world, where guys like Sensei work.

But sure....I took the vaccine and maybe 60 years from now I'll get cancer and die...maybe my 90 year old ass can take it to Twitter or Parler or whatever and find Bret Weinstein and tell him he was right.

And one more thing. If you're afraid of long term side effects, shouldn't you be worried about the long term side effects of COVID? I mean, It's a novel illness. What makes you think it won't make you more likely to get cancer, asthma, heart problems or suffer early onset dementia? Because there is real concern about that dementia part for some folks and the long hauler symptoms are a bitch, with more than a few of my colleagues who are now disabled because of COVID.

Food for thought.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

[Crow Hunter]

They work as well as I thought they would.

Just my experience...I went from working in a 36 bed medical ICU to working in a 72 bed COVID ICU. We often had to stack two intubated patients to a room so the engineering department retrofitted the unit to take two patients per room...what fun.


This time last year and we were damn near full. We opened five COVID specific units in my hospital and carried a census of 100+ COVID patients this time last year. The HCQ/AZT/ZN that was being used was ineffective based off data our intensivists had collected and researched of their own accord. Our findings were well in line with those of the scientific community.

I did education and data collection on COVID management and oxygenation strategies. I've seen the raw data myself.

This year, we have less than ten COVID patients on the hospital. All of them are unvaccinated people.

So...what changed? Decadron? Remdesivir? My badass strategies to prevent intubation?

Occam is over here shaking his head and saying "bitch please" because OF FUCKING COURSE it was the vaccine. The key difference made by the vaccine is the reduction of critical illness and our only critically ill COVID patients are unvaccinated. No judgement...some folks can't get it, some folks think Bill Gates is trying to microchip them, others are worried it'll make them sick in the long run.

I've seen exactly three fully vaccinated patients in the COVID ICU over the past year and a half. Two of whom were on anti-rejection meds for organ transplant and one of whom was HIV+ and it was later determined they did not have COVID, but actually Pneumocystis pneumonia common in AIDS.

There is a SUBSTANTIAL difference between the data being presented for the efficacy/safety of Ivermectin/HCQ/Zinc/whatever other bullshit and the efficacy/safety of the vaccinations for COVID. That data ain't even sort of the same. And it plays out in the real world, where guys like Sensei work.

But sure....I took the vaccine and maybe 60 years from now I'll get cancer and die...maybe my 90 year old ass can take it to Twitter or Parler or whatever and find Bret Weinstein and tell him he was right.

And one more thing. If you're afraid of long term side effects, shouldn't you be worried about the long term side effects of COVID? I mean, It's a novel illness. What makes you think it won't make you more likely to get cancer, asthma, heart problems or suffer early onset dementia? Because there is real concern about that dementia part for some folks and the long hauler symptoms are a bitch, with more than a few of my colleagues who are now disabled because of COVID.

Food for thought.

Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk

I wish I could double like this post.