Suppression of Free Speech on Covid

[metis]

Covid might or might not be responsible for your psoriasis, but it shouldn't be surprising that there are both short-term and long-term sequelae to this infection, which is common with viruses. Short-term complications include long Covid, as well as various organ dysfunctions. Here are some links I collected earlier:

LUNG
New study into long-term impacts of lung damage after COVID-19 – UKRI
Study examines the effect of long COVID on lung health (medicalnewstoday.com)
KIDNEY
Kidney Damage Another Consequence of 'Long COVID' (webmd.com)
Long-term effects of Covid-19 on the kidney | QJM: An International Journal of Medicine | Oxford Academic (oup.com)
HEART
The COVID Heart—One Year After SARS-CoV-2 Infection, Patients Have an Array of Increased Cardiovascular Risks | Cardiology | JAMA | JAMA Network
COVID-19 (coronavirus): Long-term effects - Mayo Clinic
BRAIN
Severe COVID-19 can trigger drop in IQ similar to aging 20 years, study shows - UPI.com
Study Finds COVID-19 May Lower Intelligence (webmd.com)

Long term sequelae are common with viruses (appearing years later). Most people realize that AIDS is long HIV (human immunodeficiency virus), but they might not be aware that cervical cancer is long HPV (human papillomavirus), Multiple Sclerosis is long EBV (Epstein-Barr Virus), Alzheimer's is long HSV (herpes simplex virus), and liver cancer is long HCV (hepatitis C virus).

These are factors frequently overlooked when considering the vaccine versus no vaccine debate. It's simply not enough to look at a 99% survival rate among the unvaccinated, the group that did the most dying after vaccines became available. A look at the death rates between the two cohorts tells another story.

And the above analysis is only the medical consequences of this infection. Life savings were exhausted with hospitalization, and children were orphaned or lost caregivers.

And to be complete, one must consider short-term and long-term sequelae to vaccination. Long-term side effects from vaccine are practically unknown, the glaring counterexample being the influenza vaccine that caused Guillan-Barre paralysis in some, but all of those cases manifested within six months, and most withing two. Short-term morbidity with the vaccine is a real thing. I know two people who became very ill for months following vaccination. Neither died, but both were harmed significantly.

Still, looking only at things like that and the high survival rate among the unvaccinated is simply an incomplete analysis of the cost-benefit ratio of vaccination. And somebody will attribute the psoriasis to the vaccine, which is just as unscientific as attributing it to the virus. Both are possible, but neither has evidentiary support.

Scientific American devoted almost an entire issue to covid and the vaccines, and I do know of several people, including myself, who do have long covid effects. At least I was fully vaxed, so I wasn't worried about dying, but now I'm very leery about getting the vaccine this time because the one I took last fall really ramped up my psoriasis whereas even sleeping was a problem.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it's called scientism, not believing anyone unless the information is approved by orthdoxy.

Nope, what I'm talking about is science.
You should learn about it sometime.

Straw man. O'Looney was not making "medical determinations", his was recounting his observations.

Not a strawman.

You're trying to use his "observations" to draw scientific conclusions.

His observations are easily explained by scientists in the know, as demonstrated.

Another straw man. "Uniformed anecdotes" are witness testimony.

Eyewitness testimony isn't scientific evidence. A collection of anecdotes lacking in scientific scrutiny don't equate to scientific data.


Please notice how you keep cutting my posts down to nothing, omitting large chunks of it in your responses to me. You keep leaving out the parts that demonstrate your claims are inaccurate and erroneous.


"It's not a fallacy to point out that someone is not a medical professional and thus not qualified to make medical determinations. Lack of education in the medical profession does affect the relevance of their observations and the conclusions they've drawn from them. As noted in the articles I provided for you, as well. . Notice how you ignored the entire rest of my post where I pointed out how you don't call a plumber to do your electrical work in your house? Thus avoiding the point. You most likely don't call a funeral director when you need brain surgery either, right? I'm not saying anything controversial here. Anyone familiar with the sciences knows what I'm talking about.

Notice also, that you didn't provide a link to anything the funeral director said or found or anything at all. The link took me to an IMDB page about a documentary. Perhaps you think that's evidence of something but it isn't.

If they guy was able to publish his findings somewhere, let's see them. Otherwise, he's sharing uninformed anecdotes."

 

[SkepticThinker]

It doesn't achieve the same goal because of the extraordinary level of harm caused by the new technology,

What "extraordinary level of harm?"

as evidenced by the mortician testimony and the the correlation between injection of the new technology and death.

We don't have any mortician testimony. You haven't provided any.
We don't' need any testimony anyway. What we need is EVIDENCE.

From Steve Kirsch, November 24th:

Will anyone qualified challenge me in a public debate at MIT on Nov 30 on what the record level data shows about the safety of the COVID vaccines?

I'll provide you the data in advance. You agree to publicly debate me at MIT on November 30. I'll pay your expenses plus a $2,000 speaking fee. Any takers?​

He should publish this supposed data for scientific scrutiny. That's how this works.
We don't settle science with public debates with businessmen.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Please notice how you keep cutting my posts down to nothing, omitting large chunks of it in your responses to me. You keep leaving out the parts that demonstrate your claims are inaccurate and erroneous.

You'd probably agree that that seems to be the rule rather than the exception with a certain class of poster, the one I call the preacher, who isn't interested in your arguments or rebuttals - just his own words. He won't give anything you write serious consideration. He's glossing through your words looking for something to disagree with. If he finds nothing, he doesn't respond at all. If he finds something he thinks he can counter, he'll address only that. He's hoping the rest will just go away and be forgotten if he ignores it.

You handled it well. You exposed that, like a good journalist interviewing somebody trying to dodge inconvenient questions. One points that fact out as you did. You ask again in a way that indicates that you have already asked. There's nothing more that can or need be done, and in my opinion, worth the effort. Bad faith argumentation ought to be exposed and identified as such.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You'd probably agree that that seems to be the rule rather than the exception with a certain class of poster, the one I call the preacher, who isn't interested in your arguments or rebuttals - just his own words. He won't give anything you write serious consideration. He's glossing through your words looking for something to disagree with. If he finds nothing, he doesn't respond at all. If he finds something he thinks he can counter, he'll address only that. He's hoping the rest will just go away and be forgotten if he ignores it.

Yep. It gets old rather quickly. But we see it over and over again. I do wish I could figure out how to get through.

You handled it well. You exposed that, like a good journalist interviewing somebody trying to dodge inconvenient questions. One points that fact out as you did. You ask again in a way that indicates that you have already asked. There's nothing more that can or need be done, and in my opinion, worth the effort. Bad faith argumentation ought to be exposed and identified as such.

Thank you. I've been taking some notes from your posting style.

 

[David1967]

I was talking to my dermatologist last year, and he said that ever since covid he's seen all sorts of effects probably from it, and I am one of those people: psoriasis, which I never had previously for 77 years.

There is something more to this. I have a family member that took the shot with no side effects. A friend of mines mother took the shot and died hours afterward. Coincidence? I don't know.

 

[Revoltingest]

There is something more to this. I have a family member that took the shot with no side effects. A friend of mines mother took the shot and died hours afterward. Coincidence? I don't know.

I know many who were very sick or died from Covid.
Not one was vaccinated.
I know many who had no symptoms or a mild case.
All were vaccinated.
Coincidence?

 

[David1967]

I know many who were very sick or died from Covid.
Not one was vaccinated.
I know many who had no symptoms or a mild case.
All were vaccinated.
Coincidence?

I don't know. All of my friends that died form covid were vaccinated. All six of them. BTW, I'm not anti vax.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't know. All of my friends that died form covid were vaccinated. All six of them. BTW, I'm not anti vax.

This has a useful explanation of what's going on.
And why everyone should be vaccinated.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Overview

COVID-19 is a new type of coronavirus that causes mild to severe cases. Here’s a quick guide on how to spot symptoms, risk factors, prevent spread of the disease, and find out what to do if you think you have it.

www.webmd.com

 

[metis]

A friend of mines mother took the shot and died hours afterward. Coincidence? I don't know.

Was there a diagnosis as to cause of death?

 

[David1967]

Was there a diagnosis as to cause of death?

Heart attack

 

[Ebionite]

Ballocks. These RNA vaccines have been used all over the world with negligible ill effects.

You don't know what you're talking about. Kirsch published the NZ whistleblower data on Wasabi, and they deactivated his account. There's no reason for them to do that if the data confirmed the "safe and effective" BS.

"There is now no doubt the vaccine is increasing the mortality rate in older people" ~ Norman Fenton, Professor of Risk Management Queen Mary University of London.

 

[Ebionite]

I was talking to my dermatologist last year, and he said that ever since covid he's seen all sorts of effects probably from it, and I am one of those people: psoriasis, which I never had previously for 77 years.

Dandelion is supposed to help with that.

 

[Ebionite]

One of our local funeral home workers told me about this recent phenomenon of white fibrous clots in the veins of some corpses. He said he'd never seen this prior to covid. Is this due to the virus itself or a vaccine injury? Years ago, I worked for a time at a funeral home and never saw anything like this myself.

According to a Nature article, clotting is probably caused by the "vaccine".

Study links COVID-19 vaccines to untreatable eyeball clots – NaturalNews.com

Many studies and firsthand reports from patients and their families or friends have linked the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines to different adverse effects. Yet Big Pharma and the mainstream media continue the narrative that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and necessary for public health. A...

www.naturalnews.com

 

[Ebionite]

Nope, what I'm talking about is science.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about. The scientific method says nothing about peer review.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

According to a Nature article, clotting is probably caused by the "vaccine".

Study links COVID-19 vaccines to untreatable eyeball clots – NaturalNews.com

Many studies and firsthand reports from patients and their families or friends have linked the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccines to different adverse effects. Yet Big Pharma and the mainstream media continue the narrative that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and necessary for public health. A...

www.naturalnews.com

Nature? That's a respected scientific journal. What you've got there is NaturalNews.com. From Wiki:

"Natural News (formerly NewsTarget, which is now a separate sister site) is a far-right, anti-vaccination conspiracy theory and fake news website known for promoting alternative medicine, pseudoscience, disinformation, and far-right extremism."

The scientific method says nothing about peer review.

You might be referring to the algorithm for setting up and performing an experiment - you know, observation, hypothesis, experiment, and repeat until reaching hypothesis confirmation (with or without modification) or rejection (null hypothesis confirmed). Think Darwin. He generated an evidenced scientific opinion.

But the scientific community wasn't done vetting those conclusions. Peer review has led to scientific consensus, as has another test: the test of time. After over a century-and-a-half, it hasn't been falsified.

This larger scientific method includes a pre-experiment peer review phase as well for those requiring funding. They need to convince peers that the study is well designed and worthy of scarce research dollars.

 

[Ebionite]

Nature? That's a respected scientific journal. What you've got there is NaturalNews.com. From Wiki:

Why should anyone care what Wiki has to say about it? Natural News provided the link to article from Nature.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Natural News provided the link to article from Nature.

Then perhaps you should have given that link instead of one to Natural News. I Googled it, found the Wiki article describing the site, and never opened your link. When you later mentioned that it CONTAINED a link from Nature rather than that it WAS a link from nature, I looked at the Nature article. It was a retrospective study.

"The primary difference between a retrospective cohort study and a prospective cohort study is the timing of the data collection and the direction of the study. A retrospective cohort study looks back in time. It uses preexisting secondary research data to examine the relationship between an exposure and an outcome. Data is collected after the outcome you’re studying has already occurred. Alternatively, a prospective cohort study follows a group of individuals over time. It collects data on both the exposure and the outcome of interest as they are occurring. Data is collected before the outcome of interest has occurred."

When I was a medical student and young doctor, we were taught that all postmenopausal women for whom it was not contraindicated should be placed on supplemental estrogen replacement therapy. Then, about mid-career medicine reversed itself on this. Only those within two years of menopause should get estrogens, the rest doing worse if given estrogens. Why?

The original recommendations came from "observational studies," which are retrospective. One goes through the charts of patients. Then, prospective, randomized, controlled trials (named below) were done, and showed a different outcome. From Estrogen, hormonal replacement therapy and cardiovascular disease :

"Observational studies also show that postmenopausal women who receive hormone replacement therapy (HRT) have a lower rate of CVD and cardiac death than those not receiving HRT [5,6]. However, two randomized prospective primary or secondary prevention trials, the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) [7] and the Heart and Estrogen/Progestin Replacement Study (HERS I and II) [8,9], showed that HRT may actually increase the risk and events of CVD in postmenopausal women. The reasons for this paradoxical characterization of HRT as both beneficial and detrimental remain unclear. Many potential factors may contribute to the adverse outcome, among them the age of patients, preexisting CVD and/or risk, when HRT was initiated, the type of HRT given (conjugated equine estrogen with progestin), dosage, and the thromboembolic properties of estrogen and progestin [6,10–13]."

Another hypothesis for this anomalous outcome was that healthy women with extensive medical charts weren't the same as women who didn't see doctors regularly in terms of their overall health. The ones getting estrogen were also having their blood pressure, blood sugar, and cholesterol levels monitored and controlled where appropriate, which could have accounted for their better health outcomes than the women not seeing doctors regularly.

Whatever the answer, this is a cautionary tale about retrospective studies like the eye clot study in Nature.

Notice that the data showing the protective effect of vaccines for serious illness and death is also retrospective. It's data collected after the fact regarding vaccination or not status and severe outcomes or not. That means that the two cohorts aren't randomized, and therefore, not similar enough. The unvaccinated ones have a lot more in common with one another than being unvaccinated as do the vaccinated group.

The vaccine deniers were also slower to seek help once they got sick (they were often afraid of going to hospitals), were using pseudoscientific remedies like horse dewormer, and can assumed to be prone to conspiracy theory - all of which may have contributed to the disparity between the outcomes for the two groups. That's why randomization and prospective, double-blinded studies produce more reliable results. The vaccinated and unvaccinated groups would be as similar as possible due to isolation of one variable from the rest - presence or absence of a vaccine.

Why should anyone care what Wiki has to say about it?

I do.

What I don't care about are creationist sites, conservative indoctrination sites, conspiracy theory sites, and pseudoscience sites. I don't look at any of those.

And Wiki's was not the only scathing review of this site:

Anatomy of a Disinformation Empire: Investigating NaturalNews
Natural News articles analyzed - Health Feedback
Popular anti-science site likens journalists to "Nazi collaborators" over GMO coverage

 

[Ebionite]

Then perhaps you should have given that link instead of one to Natural News.

The Natural News article had some useful information about class action lawsuits, which is relevant since the recent analysis of the NZ record-level data shows a clear safety signal, implicating the NZ Ministry of Health in gross negligence resulting in an estimated 4000 deaths. The current reported number of NZ deaths due to COVID is 3549.

 

[Ebionite]

Journalist Liz Gunn releases an official statement advising the NZ Ministry of Health Whistleblower and person working with him have both been raided by police.

Liz Gunn reports police are still surrounding the Whistleblowers’ home after several hours following the raid.

Gunn calls for the New Zealand government to call off this tyrannical response and give the Whistleblower the honour and respect he deserves as a national hero.

Uncensored: Liz Gunn NZ Government Whistleblower EXPLODES Worldwide!!! Accountability is COMING!

Journalist Liz Gunn joins Maria Zeee after releasing the most damning data to date on COVID crimes, with NZ Ministry of Health whistleblower data showing the death of New Zealanders directly from the

rumble.com