spadez

6 ms·

1.
by spadez 5y ago
>WHO has evaluated that the following vaccines against COVID-19 have met the necessary criteria for safety and efficacy: I would like to see all the data W.H.O looked at before making the evaluation. Also why is VAERS not mentioned?
2.
by spadez 5y ago
> incredibly lax safety procedures. Or someone having a bad day. Human beings are not robots. In fact they are quite opposite, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core > all you need is for some people to be near
3.
by spadez 5y ago
Couple of them are described here.. https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/01/27/does-lockdown-work-... Under the heading "The damage inflicted by medical ideas"
4.
by spadez 5y ago
Isn't the patent for Ivermectin expired already? So can't anyone produce the pills? If that is the case, its pretty obvious why they are not supporting it..
5.
by spadez 5y ago
125 serious AEFI in 446,380 doses. 1:3571 indeed. But here too the reporting is open to anyone, and is voluntary. So chances of large under reporting is present here as well. Which is a bit scary..
6.
by spadez 5y ago
> The technology is insufficient for the task, and it will never get better. This is very true. But I don't think it is a problem with technology. It is just that you cannot really have a valuable insight by putting a 10000 idiots
7.
by spadez 5y ago
> obvious lie that was implying the vaccines aren’t low risk. If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how m
8.
by spadez 5y ago
I asked why Covid vaccines are absent from VAERS list of reportable AEFIs https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_... And the person you are responding basically said that the new vaccines are so sa
9.
by spadez 5y ago
>Xofluza, Relenza, and Tamiflu None of them are as effective as Ivermectin (allegedly). It is only logical that efficacy is also important.
10.
by spadez 5y ago
> YouTube is not a legitimate source for medical/drug information. It is not a source, and never was a legitimate source of anything, but a media of communication. I am not sure why people mix the two up. If doctors in one part of t
11.
by spadez 5y ago
Its the governments of the two states that are making the claims in the news articles. I think it is safe to suppose they or the associated medical authorities have observed a big enough benefit before making that claim. But no, no concrete
12.
by spadez 5y ago
> But an actual randomized control trial of Ivermectin in March Please see this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27566123
13.
by spadez 5y ago
> 16th century with Galileo and the Catholic Church. Killing science in the name of religion and beliefs is one thing, killing science in the name of science itself is quite another.
14.
by spadez 5y ago
>India wouldn't have taken it off the recommended drugs list. Normally authorities are afraid to go against W.H.O recommendations, because if it didn't work out, it would be hard to justify it on the basis of local observations
15.
by spadez 5y ago
>Are you claiming that some non-trivial number of patients in India were treated with this Yes, example from two states. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-prade... https://w
16.
by spadez 5y ago
List of Ivermectin studies: https://c19ivermectin.com/ FLCCC Alliance Response to All National and International Health Agency Recommendations Against Ivermectin in COVID-19: https://covid19criticalcare.com/
17.
by spadez 5y ago
>If someone died because of a "Take Ivermectin and you'll survive COVID" video on YouTube, who's to blame? But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of people, who could have been saved by Ivermectin, which in a
18.
Ask HN: How do you measure Public Health?
1 points by spadez 5y ago|0 comments
19.
by spadez 5y ago
>But science has not yet reached a consensus Can we please get rid of this idea of some entity named "science" reaching a "consensus", already? Please just say we don't know. Because it promotes the idea that the
20.
by spadez 5y ago
> Trust (or lack thereof) is the biggest threat to public health. I would say the current alignment of incentive structure, is the biggest threat to public health.
21.
by spadez 5y ago
This page seem to be updated https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ with the information about observation of increase in R00-R99 deaths for current time. But the article does not appear to believe that it c
22.
by spadez 5y ago
>a graph that shows it actually was a dramatic plunge in deaths correlated with the vaccination. Please share the link to the page and section heading under which this graph is present. Also this page seem to be updated https:/&#x2
23.
by spadez 5y ago
I would more like to see why people blindly trust some group of human beings to not conspire, when there is every (often gigantic) incentive for that group to do so.
24.
by spadez 5y ago
It is not meant to be an appeal to authority, so the persons history/reputation is not relevant, but just their arguments.
25.
by spadez 5y ago
A follow up to the post.. https://drowningindatadotblog.wordpress.com/2021/05/27/linki... And there is also one from CDC data.. https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/
26.
Excess deaths and SARS-CoV2 vaccinations in Scotland(drowningindatadotblog.wordpress.com)
57 points by spadez 5y ago|46 comments
27.
by spadez 5y ago
https://sciencewithdrdoug.com/2021/02/15/breaking-study-shed...
28.
by spadez 5y ago
> In the end you are comparing who had vaccine/placebo on a group of O(100) people. I guess this is what people were saying about Absolute vs Relative risk reduction. If that is so, your explanation makes it much more clear.
29.
by spadez 5y ago
One reason could be that existing vaccines can turn out to be unsafe.. https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/
30.
by spadez 5y ago
But the emails mentioned here is very interesting.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNxoVFZwMYw

More ›