DON'T PANIC.... well, maybe a little bit.

[Nimbus]

Many so called "civilized countries" in the West have turned into full authoritarian states, freedom being thrown in the bin in name of the Covid religion.


This includes France, after our dear president's last decision :
- All medical staff, fire figthers, ambulance crews must bee mandatory vaccined before 30/9. If not they will be excluded from.their job. i.e. "sacked". Now this may technically, medically make sense, but the method is unacceptable.

- Covid pass mandatory to access bars, restaurants, malls, shopping centers, museums, cinemas etc. Which is simply a disguised way to oblige everybody to take the jab

Time for another revolution IMO, but the government has done such an excellent job of instauring a sacred fear and I think the sheeps will obey.

The sheep are the one blindly following antivaxxers with no or manufactured scientific evidence. What doctors know about covid today is based on the scientific method. It may not be perfect, but it’s not based on the cult and religion of antivaccination and flat earth theory.

 

[dafluff]

So looks like at least some of the studies supporting Ivermectin were conceived with made-up data.

Interestingly enough, one of the culprits is the same one that wrote a retracted Lancet paper against Hydroxychloroquine, using the same made-up database.

I guess the guy just had a stockpile of Ivermectin that he needed to offload, and didn't like that people were buying HCQ instead...

Unreliable data: how doubt snowballed over Covid-19 drug research that swept the world

A vast database from a little-known company called Surgisphere has influenced rapid policy shifts as the world seeks treatments for Covid-19. But as researchers began to examine it more closely, they became increasingly concerned

www.theguardian.com

And another one is being withdrawn due to ethical concerns (probably made up data, but at the very least sloppy data).

Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns

The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data

www.theguardian.com

 

[ChrisTex]

More about the herd immunity, this time from the Jakarta Globe. This stuck out to me:

'That indicates that more people in the capital had been exposed to the virus at some time in the past, seven times greater than the official data suggested....Experts have long suspected the real figure for the Covid-19 pandemic in the capital was higher than the official record indicated, especially with the city burial data showed an unusually high number of burials with biosecurity protocol.'

This basically confirms what most of us here and I am sure others have believed for some time. I am willing to guess the figures are even higher than what they(from the article) are suggesting. At least questioning the official numbers/data is being talked about publicly. Before if you even questioned it, you were seen a spreading a hoax/giving misinformation(not here, but other places).

https://jakartaglobe.id/news/jakart...alf-of-its-population-have-had-covid19-survey

 

[dafluff]

A report that Ivermectin has been approved by the govt for emergency Covid treatment

BPOM Setujui Ivermectin untuk Pengobatan Covid-19 - TIMES Indonesia

Badan Pengawas Obat dan Makanan (BPOM) akhirnya menyetujui Ivermectin sebagai salah satu obat penggunaan darurat atau Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) sebagai obat yang mendukung penanganan terapi Covid-19.

www.timesindonesia.co.id

BPOM clarifies that Ivermectin does not have Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), rather it has approval for use in the context of a clinical trial. Currently, only two drugs, Remdesivir and Favipiravir have EUA in Indonesia.

"Ada dua yang punya EUA yaitu Remdesivir dan Favipiravir. Kalau Ivermectin adalah obat uji untuk pengobatan COVID-19," kata Penny, Kamis (15/7/2021).

Penny mengatakan, Ivermectin dapat diakses melalui delapan rumah sakit yang mengikuti uji klinik dan rumah sakit lain sesuai petunjuk teknis. Ia menegaskan, saat ini Ivermectin dapat diberikan sesuai resep dokter yang mengacu pada petunjuk teknis.

Ivermectin Belum Dapat Izin, BPOM Luruskan soal SE yang Dianggap Izin Penggunaan Darurat - Tribunnews.com

BPOM belum memberikan izin penggunaan darurat EUA untuk Ivermectin sebagai obat pendukung penanganan terapi Covid-19.

www.tribunnews.com

 

[harryopal1]

The notions of herd immunity in the Jakarta Globe are I think rather wishful thinking. At the point where the "herd " has immunity there will be another mutation. Just as influenza mutates every year and people get ill with the new flu mutation so it will be with Covid mutations. This will not all quickly go away even after vaccinations cover most of the population.

 

[dafluff]

Association of Blood Glucose Control and Outcomes in Patients with COVID-19 and Pre-existing Type 2 Diabetes - PMC

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a major comorbidity of COVID-19. However, the impact of blood glucose (BG) control on the degree of required medical interventions and on mortality in patients with COVID-19 and T2D remains uncertain. Thus, we performed a ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

While diabetes is a comorbidity in Covid-19, controlled blood sugar could improve outcomes, and reduce deaths by 10 fold.

Unfortunately, undiagnosed diabetes in Indonesia is very common, with maybe 70% of diabetics (and 4.1% of the whole population) are undiagnosed. If you or anyone you know has early symptoms of diabetes, you should get your blood glucose tested.

 

[Helpful Herbert]

I think everyone gets their blood glucose tested before the vaccination, as well as blood pressure. Not sure what they do if you have diabetes-level glucose, I guess the vaccine is even more important in that case.

 

[Balifrog]

And another one is being withdrawn due to ethical concerns (probably made up data, but at the very least sloppy data).

Huge study supporting ivermectin as Covid treatment withdrawn over ethical concerns

The preprint endorsing ivermectin as a coronavirus therapy has been widely cited, but independent researchers find glaring discrepancies in the data

www.theguardian.com

What one should remember before blindly (and religiously) take all those "trials" and "studies for guaranteed, foolproof and honest :

1) All trials (phase 1, 2, 3) for a new medicine or vaccine are done by the manufacturer himself. He then submits the results to the authorities of the country where he wants it approved, say FDA in the US, the FDA then on reading those test results judges them satisfactory or not, and issues the agreement (or not) for said product.

This of course raises a few questions...
# Trials are done by the manufacturer, not by a government entity or by a neutral 3rd party (if such thing "neutral" exists..). So we have the obvious risk that Big Pharma is presenting / orientating the reports and data in the most favorable way possible.

- In case of the Covid vaccine the case was even worse as governments have given important grants to Big Pharma to develop those vaccines, but the manufacturers are legally shielded from any liability for side effects, sickness, deaths resulting from the vaccine. This is not new, it's an old law in the US, for other countries (see Israel paper) I think the Covid vaccine deal was done with specific clauses.

Fact Check: Are Moderna and Pfizer Immune From COVID-19 Vaccine Lawsuits?

Millions of Americans have already received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccines, but many people wonder if pharmaceutical companies will be liable in the event of a vaccine-related injury.

www.newsweek.com

Who's responsible for COVID-19 vaccine damage? Not the manufacturers

Israel submitted to dictates of vaccine manufacturers, absolving them of responsibility in event of adverse effects.

www.israelnationalnews.com

2) Scientific magazines (Lancet etc..) are of course heavily sponsored through advertising by Big Pharma, which from the start creates a conflict of interest.
I tended to take those magazine for VERY serious and objective, but the Lancet's disaster (2020) concerning the report of the high mortal risk of hydro chloroquine, which later proved to be build on fantasy data, and that they later retracted, has made me much more prudent. Some post above have shown 2 other examples.

3) Conflict of interest :
First thing to do is to "clean up" all those scientific committees assisting government, the W.H.O and so on, from ANY person that has the slightest conflict of interest with Big Pharma.
Conflict of interest doesn't only mean taking envelopes, or being offered nice "seminaries" in the Caribbean, but also doing, or having done works, trials, tests sponsored by them. Or even simply having had his medical studies paid by Big Pharma.
It sounds something basic, logic, evident but if they applied that rule they would probably have to kick out more then 50% of the members of said committees.

At least Covid has brought all those problems to the surface and in the open.
Not that I am very optimistic on any change coming, the money involved is simply too huge.

For the fun let me throw in 2 more points.

- How do pharmaceutical companies price their products ? Google that phrase..
It's not like any other business (cost of goods + xx%), but simply price it as high as possible.

Why Does Medicine Cost So Much? Here's How Drug Prices Are Set

A guide to the complex variables that determine what you pay

time.com

How Pharmaceutical Companies Price Their Drugs in the U.S.

Learn about how pharmaceutical companies price drugs, why prices are often significantly high, and why it can be difficult to settle on a suitable price.

www.investopedia.com

- I also recommend you to have a look at the the stock price charts of the main Big Pharma since Jan 2020 !

It's a wonderful world we live in .......

 

[R Cameron]

This of course raises a few questions...
# Trials are done by the manufacturer, not by a government entity or by a neutral 3rd party (if such thing "neutral" exists..).

This is also the reason we haven't seen large, double-blind, peer-reviewed studies on Ivermectin, Hydroxycloroquin, and others. Their patents have expired, so there is no big profit to make, so there is no financial motivation to give them a proper study.

National health associations like CDC, FDA, NIH, and their equivalents in other advanced nations (as well as research universities) have really failed in their role to help the public by depending on private companies to fund and conduct much of the necessary work.

There's a term for that; Regulatory Capture

Regulatory capture - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[MamangDudul]

What one should remember before blindly (and religiously) take all those "trials" and "studies for guaranteed, foolproof and honest :

1) All trials (phase 1, 2, 3) for a new medicine or vaccine are done by the manufacturer himself. He then submits the results to the authorities of the country where he wants it approved, say FDA in the US, the FDA then on reading those test results judges them satisfactory or not, and issues the agreement (or not) for said product.

This of course raises a few questions...
# Trials are done by the manufacturer, not by a government entity or by a neutral 3rd party (if such thing "neutral" exists..). So we have the obvious risk that Big Pharma is presenting / orientating the reports and data in the most favorable way possible.

- In case of the Covid vaccine the case was even worse as governments have given important grants to Big Pharma to develop those vaccines, but the manufacturers are legally shielded from any liability for side effects, sickness, deaths resulting from the vaccine. This is not new, it's an old law in the US, for other countries (see Israel paper) I think the Covid vaccine deal was done with specific clauses.

Fact Check: Are Moderna and Pfizer Immune From COVID-19 Vaccine Lawsuits?

Millions of Americans have already received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccines, but many people wonder if pharmaceutical companies will be liable in the event of a vaccine-related injury.

www.newsweek.com

Who's responsible for COVID-19 vaccine damage? Not the manufacturers

Israel submitted to dictates of vaccine manufacturers, absolving them of responsibility in event of adverse effects.

www.israelnationalnews.com

2) Scientific magazines (Lancet etc..) are of course heavily sponsored through advertising by Big Pharma, which from the start creates a conflict of interest.
I tended to take those magazine for VERY serious and objective, but the Lancet's disaster (2020) concerning the report of the high mortal risk of hydro chloroquine, which later proved to be build on fantasy data, and that they later retracted, has made me much more prudent. Some post above have shown 2 other examples.

3) Conflict of interest :
First thing to do is to "clean up" all those scientific committees assisting government, the W.H.O and so on, from ANY person that has the slightest conflict of interest with Big Pharma.
Conflict of interest doesn't only mean taking envelopes, or being offered nice "seminaries" in the Caribbean, but also doing, or having done works, trials, tests sponsored by them. Or even simply having had his medical studies paid by Big Pharma.
It sounds something basic, logic, evident but if they applied that rule they would probably have to kick out more then 50% of the members of said committees.

At least Covid has brought all those problems to the surface and in the open.
Not that I am very optimistic on any change coming, the money involved is simply too huge.

For the fun let me throw in 2 more points.

- How do pharmaceutical companies price their products ? Google that phrase..
It's not like any other business (cost of goods + xx%), but simply price it as high as possible.

Why Does Medicine Cost So Much? Here's How Drug Prices Are Set

A guide to the complex variables that determine what you pay

time.com

How Pharmaceutical Companies Price Their Drugs in the U.S.

Learn about how pharmaceutical companies price drugs, why prices are often significantly high, and why it can be difficult to settle on a suitable price.

www.investopedia.com

- I also recommend you to have a look at the the stock price charts of the main Big Pharma since Jan 2020 !

It's a wonderful world we live in .......

Most of the things happening have something to do with money, power, corruption and influence. There is nothing spectacularly new about that. That's why I feel that a lot of people are a bit naive when it comes to defending all "official" views against contradicting views. Like this time there is totally everything super correct to a 1000% with everything we are made to believe.
For the 100th time Iam not a doctor and I never said Covid isn't a thing, or isn't dangerous nor Iam an anti-vaxxer for example. Still, a lot of things are fishy and in my eyes a lot of people are not critical enough. We have to observe and examine very carefully what the problems in this Corona-situation and everything connected to it are.

The world doesn't work in ideal ways. Money, Power and Corruption are some of the most driving factors. That has probably been proofen through uncountable scandals in every area.
Sure, there are flat-earthers or anti-vaxxers or whatever. People just shouldn't throw everything into that pot only when it is different from what other sources say.
Everything has to be questioned and we , as mostly non-scientists, are walking on thin ice when we try to debate scientifical things and so on. That's why this situation is very very difficult for many people.
Many are afraid of the virus, others are afraid of other stuff that is happening for example countries becoming more authoritarian and stuff like that. Others are maybe afraid of both...

 

[HappyMan]

...
2) Scientific magazines (Lancet etc..) are of course heavily sponsored through advertising by Big Pharma, which from the start creates a conflict of interest.
I tended to take those magazine for VERY serious and objective, but the Lancet's disaster (2020) concerning the report of the high mortal risk of hydro chloroquine, which later proved to be build on fantasy data, and that they later retracted, has made me much more prudent. Some post above have shown 2 other examples.

3) Conflict of interest :
First thing to do is to "clean up" all those scientific committees assisting government, the W.H.O and so on, from ANY person that has the slightest conflict of interest with Big Pharma.
Conflict of interest doesn't only mean taking envelopes, or being offered nice "seminaries" in the Caribbean, but also doing, or having done works, trials, tests sponsored by them. Or even simply having had his medical studies paid by Big Pharma.
It sounds something basic, logic, evident but if they applied that rule they would probably have to kick out more then 50% of the members of said committees.

At least Covid has brought all those problems to the surface and in the open.
Not that I am very optimistic on any change coming, the money involved is simply too huge.

Fair points here. There has been a growing movement to audit and reform scientific journals for some years now, but I'm not following the topic closely enough to know what the current state of affairs is.

All of this very clearly needs reform in the long term... But in the short term, the studies that were done by Pharma are the ones that we have. Discount them as you like, but they have some connection to evidence and facts. To me, saying, "I don't believe it cause I don't wanna' believe it." with no connection to evidence or facts is a bit... religious. No facts, all faith.

 

[Balifrog]

Fair points here. There has been a growing movement to audit and reform scientific journals for some years now, but I'm not following the topic closely enough to know what the current state of affairs is.

All of this very clearly needs reform in the long term... But in the short term, the studies that were done by Pharma are the ones that we have. Discount them as you like, but they have some connection to evidence and facts. To me, saying, "I don't believe it cause I don't wanna' believe it." with no connection to evidence or facts is a bit... religious. No facts, all faith.

No, that's not what I meant. Let's say I take it all with a lot of skepticism.

And since the beginning of this Covid drama, is has become a VERY LOT of skepticism....

And TBH, I am so bored with the media, the politicians, and now even the "scientists" trying to feed me stories that contains a lot of B.S., that I simply don't care and I just go on with my life as normal.

And I mean the "old school normal", not that other thing some smartass invented "the NEW normal"

I now only follow up on total deaths compared to previous years. In a few years we will have enough hindsight to see the real long term impact and also the impact (if any) on average life expectancy.

But again this is only possible for 1st world countries that have a reliable government office of statistics. (ONS in UK, INSEE in France, Statbel in Belgium, Euromomo for global Europe stats)

 

[Balifrog]

For the 100th time Iam not a doctor and I never said Covid isn't a thing, or isn't dangerous nor Iam an anti-vaxxer for example. Still, a lot of things are fishy and in my eyes a lot of people are not critical enough. We have to observe and examine very carefully what the problems in this Corona-situation and everything connected to it are.

........

Everything has to be questioned and we , as mostly non-scientists, are walking on thin ice when we try to debate scientifical things and so on. That's why this situation is very very difficult for many people.
Many are afraid of the virus, others are afraid of other stuff that is happening for example countries becoming more authoritarian and stuff like that. Others are maybe afraid of both

Agreed. And the "authoritarian" part limits even more our ways of expressing our doubts. Opposition or even simple critical thinking is banned on this subject. Try to make a YouTube video criticizing the W.H.O ......

Because you can be sure that all those "temporary" measures will be kept in place.

A bit like all the travel security stuff that was put in place after 9/11.

 

[dafluff]

Some observations in no particular order:

1. The scientific community has a peer-review process, which is how those fraudulent papers were detected and exposed. To me, this shows that while not perfect, the system has checks and balances that work.

2. Not all scientific papers have to be published to the benefit of big evil corporations. Just a few posts above I shared a paper that showed controlling blood sugar reduces death 10 folds. That's almost as good as some vaccines. Yet controlling blood sugar is a good idea regardless of Covid, can be done for free for a lot of people (diet, exercise), and metformin, insulin, etc have been off-patent for decades. The same goes for research that supports the use of dexamethasone (also off-patent), and vitamin D (available for free from the sun).

3. I find it funny that almost every time someone cautions "we have to be careful and look at both sides", the other side invariable ends up being some crazy conspiracy Youtube video or some random guy's website. You'd figure someone who's actually interested in a balanced view would once in a while stumble upon a proper source, even if by chance.

4. For now I'm going to stick to trusting scientific methods, rather than the musing of some random dude on the internet whose argument against Covid19 health measures is "I spent 20 years in SEA without a condom and I didn't get syphilis so Covid is a lie..."

 

[MamangDudul]

Some observations in no particular order:

1. The scientific community has a peer-review process, which is how those fraudulent papers were detected and exposed. To me, this shows that while not perfect, the system has checks and balances that work.

2. Not all scientific papers have to be published to the benefit of big evil corporations. Just a few posts above I shared a paper that showed controlling blood sugar reduces death 10 folds. That's almost as good as some vaccines. Yet controlling blood sugar is a good idea regardless of Covid, can be done for free for a lot of people (diet, exercise), and metformin, insulin, etc have been off-patent for decades. The same goes for research that supports the use of dexamethasone (also off-patent), and vitamin D (available for free from the sun).

3. I find it funny that almost every time someone cautions "we have to be careful and look at both sides", the other side invariable ends up being some crazy conspiracy Youtube video or some random guy's website. You'd figure someone who's actually interested in a balanced view would once in a while stumble upon a proper source, even if by chance.

4. For now I'm going to stick to trusting scientific methods, rather than the musing of some random dude on the internet whose argument against Covid19 health measures is "I spent 20 years in SEA without a condom and I didn't get syphilis so Covid is a lie..."

Peer-review and publication does not guarantee reliable information - Students 4 Best Evidence

Even though a comparison of treatments has been published in a prestigious journal, it may not be a fair comparison and the results may not be reliable. Peer review (assessment of a study by others working in the same field) does not guarantee that published studies are reliable.

s4be.cochrane.org

1 second google search brought this up, just saying Everything can be questioned.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[dafluff]

Peer-review and publication does not guarantee reliable information - Students 4 Best Evidence

Even though a comparison of treatments has been published in a prestigious journal, it may not be a fair comparison and the results may not be reliable. Peer review (assessment of a study by others working in the same field) does not guarantee that published studies are reliable.

s4be.cochrane.org

1 second google search brought this up, just saying Everything can be questioned.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Never said that it guarantees reliable information, in fact, I said that it is not perfect. Now imagine the reliability of sources that are not peer-reviewed, if the peer-reviewed ones are not perfect.

In life, where very few things can be known with absolute certainty, you have to assign a certain probability of something being true/possible, etc. In that process, your buddy's conspiracy website with 5 articles that he registered last year, ranks much much lower than The Lancet, flaws included. If you were truly interested in finding out the truth, that is how you would weigh the likelihood of certain information being true.

If however, all the data you present are from dubious sources, then I'm going to posit that finding out the truth is actually not your goal.

 

[Balifrog]

Peer-review and publication does not guarantee reliable information - Students 4 Best Evidence

Even though a comparison of treatments has been published in a prestigious journal, it may not be a fair comparison and the results may not be reliable. Peer review (assessment of a study by others working in the same field) does not guarantee that published studies are reliable.

s4be.cochrane.org

1 second google search brought this up, just saying Everything can be questioned.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Depends who is the "peer" who reviews your study.
If you write a study, and have it reviewed by your budy, or colleague it is not really reliable...

 

[Balifrog]

whose argument against Covid19 health measures is "I spent 20 years in SEA without a condom and I didn't get syphilis so Covid is a lie.

Low level answer.

I thought you were more intellectual than that, but obviously I was wrong ....

In French "réponse lamentable"

 

[dafluff]

Low level answer.

I thought you were more intellectual than that, but obviously I was wrong ....

In French "réponse lamentable"

Reverting to ad hominem...

Thankfully, I don't give a second thought to your ability for judging intelligence.

 

[gemima]

Depends who is the "peer" who reviews your study.
If you write a study, and have it reviewed by your budy, or colleague it is not really reliable...

In responsible journals, you don't get a choice of who the reviewer is. It's a blinded process.
The editor of the journal will select the reviewers - there are usually 3 of them and they must be recognized experts in the field.