1539 replies to this topic

[zen]

Agree. I lack time to reproduce from ourwordindata.org site his charts. Maybe later I will find the precise links and post them here. In meantime I just collected in one small PDF here his charts:

deaths by age and vax US april 2024 Goldstein.pdf
 

 

If I recall correctly, one was considered fully vaccinated only after two weeks have passed since their second mRNA shot.
If a person got the shot(s) but died before they would have been counted as fully vaccinated the death was counted as an "unvaccinated".

Unless they have corrected for the above when creating the charts I personally have a hard time trusting such data.

[Mind]

If I recall correctly, one was considered fully vaccinated only after two weeks have passed since their second mRNA shot.
If a person got the shot(s) but died before they would have been counted as fully vaccinated the death was counted as an "unvaccinated".

Unless they have corrected for the above when creating the charts I personally have a hard time trusting such data.

 

It was two weeks after the 2nd shot before anyone was considered vaccinated - so basically a month (4 weeks). If you got sick with COVID during the month or died from the injections, you were considered unvaccinated. In addition, very few IFR studies tested for prior infection.

[albedo]

 

Re:post 1498

 

Any idea where in ourworldindata.org Dr. Goldstein found those charts? Personally I'd like to see the charts, claimed to be at a specific link, when I click the link. When I click Dr. Goldstein's link, I see no charts. If the charts are actually somewhere  at  ourworldindata.org then Dr. Goldstein should have linked to the specific page(s) so the reader can look at them in context.

 

A commenter to Dr. Goldstein's post writes:

 

Rick Schutzenhofer, PharmD, BCGP

Dedicated and patient-focused pharmacist looking to make a difference first then make a life!

17h

 

"For more even comparison, it would be best to keep the increments on the Y axis the same for all graphs. This would more accurately reflect the actual difference, and then show the age groups that were affected more substantially by vaccination. Also need to break out the clinical variables of the people in the age groups to see who benefited the most within any age group."

 

All valid criticisms as to why Dr. Goldstein's post is garbage.

 

 

Here is the link from where he took the graphs ( go to "Data on COVID-19 mortality by vaccination status. Here we combine the official mortality data by vaccination status published by the United States, England, Switzerland, and Chile. These charts are no longer updated since August 2023." )

 

You can change interactively the age group to reproduce the graphs of his post.

 

https://ourworldinda...-by-vaccination
 

[Hip]

Has COVID set us up for a major heart disease epidemic? It’s happened before 

 

This article explains how a lingering virus like SARS-CoV-2 may set up home in the heart tissues, and may lead to an epidemic of heart disease in the decades to come.

[Mind]

Just another study indicating people dying from pneumonia - not COVID. The policy of putting people on ventilators with almost zero standard pneumonia treatment led to a lot of unnecessary death and led people to believing in an absurdly and erroneously high IFR from COVID.

[Mind]

Here are a couple of researchers attempting to quantify how much "death by COVID" was over-reported. They compare to recording standards for the flu and pneumonia. They estimate that COVID deaths were over-counted by up to 350% (3.5 times too high).

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #1506

 

"..over-counted by up to 350% (3.5 times too high)."

 

The above is an example of a commonly-made error. The correct "times too high" is 4.5 times, not 3.5 times.

 

Here is a "fold" calculator (fold means "times"). You can see that if you enter 3.5 that the percentage is 250%, and entering 4.5 gives you 350%.

 

To get a fold "f" from a percentage "p", use f = (p/100) +1. E.g. 4.5 = (350/100) + 1. To get the percentage from the fold use p = (f - 1) x 100.

 

 

 

[Galaxyshock]

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with an increase in new diagnoses of schizophrenia spectrum and psychotic disorder: A study using the US national COVID cohort collaborative (N3C)

 

[Daniel Cooper]

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with an increase in new diagnoses of schizophrenia spectrum and psychotic disorder: A study using the US national COVID cohort collaborative (N3C)

 

Weirdly that study implies that having ARDS is slightly protective against schizophrenia. 

 

What would have been more interesting in my opinion would be a direct comparison against something like influenza rather than ARDS because we don't know what caused the ARDS (likely multiple causes in that cohort).

 

Is this a feature of having the immune system kicked into overdrive? Cytokines, inflammation, etc. Would we see something similar in other significant upper respiratory viral infections?  I do give them some credit for having a "ill control group" (the ARDs cohort) because I have a suspicions we're seeing effects from covid "because we are looking at it". Obviously covid was a big deal, and all sorts of studies are being done looking for follow on effects like this. But is this something unique to covid or do other significant viral infections cause the same issues simply because the immune system is being activated? We probably don't know because it's likely that no one has looked before.

 

That's the danger of some of these studies - when you focus a high level of scrutiny on this one virus you might detect effects that you think are specific to sars-cov2 because you've simply never looked for these effects with other viruses.

 

Interesting study still.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 04 June 2024 - 03:36 PM.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with an increase in new diagnoses of schizophrenia spectrum and psychotic disorder: A study using the US national COVID cohort collaborative (N3C)

 

Another garbage study to relegate to the trash bin. There is no indication as to who among the patients in the control cohort (ARDS and  COVID-19 lab negative) or in the SSPD group, if any, that might have received a COVID19 vaccination(s). Did the authors not realize that vaccination status might be an extremely important confound?

 

 

 

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 04 June 2024 - 05:54 PM.

[Galaxyshock]

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with an increase in new diagnoses of schizophrenia spectrum and psychotic disorder: A study using the US national COVID cohort collaborative (N3C)

 

Another garbage study to relegate to the trash bin. There is no indication as to who among the patients in the control cohort (ARDS and  COVID-19 lab negative) or in the SSPD group, if any, that might have received a COVID19 vaccination(s). Did the authors not realize that vaccination status might be an extremely important confound?

 

Yes, vaccines, the cause of all disease since 2020.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #1511

 

You're missing the point of my post, Galaxyshock. Give a little thought to what I wrote; do some Gedankenexperiments focused on what it might mean for each study group to have known and then unknown vaccination statuses. Think about the mechanism of action of the virus and mechanisims of action for the 3 common types of COVID19 vaccines.

 

If, upon reflection, you realize the importance of having vaccination status included in the study, then fine. Otherwise, please explain why you might believe, as your sarcasm suggests, that knowing the vaccination status of the study's patients is immaterial to the results presented by the authors.

 

 

[Galaxyshock]

Re: post #1511

 

You're missing the point of my post, Galaxyshock. Give a little thought to what I wrote; do some Gedankenexperiments focused on what it might mean for each study group to have known and then unknown vaccination statuses. Think about the mechanism of action of the virus and mechanisims of action for the 3 common types of COVID19 vaccines.

 

If, upon reflection, you realize the importance of having vaccination status included in the study, then fine. Otherwise, please explain why you might believe, as your sarcasm suggests, that knowing the vaccination status of the study's patients is immaterial to the results presented by the authors.

 

Well I posted the same study earlier but you decided to post it again. It's true vaccination status matters, but it seems in these forums people ramble about the failure of vaccines endlessly and don't realize the COVID itself can cause plethora of damage like breakdown of the blood brain barrier.

 

Virus infections are linked to triggering schizophrenia:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...es/PMC10302918/

[Galaxyshock]

Virus infections are linked to triggering schizophrenia:

https://www.ncbi.nlm...es/PMC10302918/

 

Or maybe that's another garbage study because they didn't control whether the schizophrenics eat potatoes or not.

[Advocatus Diaboli]

Re: post #1513

 

"It's true vaccination status matters..."

 

Good.

 

Now, let's test your logical-reasoning ability. If it would have been important for the study to have included vaccination status (referring to COVOD-19 vaccines), as you now concur, and if the subject study did not include vaccination status, then which of the following statements would best characterize the study:

 

1.) The study is garbage because it did not include something that "matters",  i.e. vaccination status, in making determinations about certain clinical effects of COVID-19.

 

or

 

2.) The study results are perfectly fine and can be trusted to have arrived at accurate determinations in spite of having failed to include an important "matter" (vaccination status), the inclusion of which could have potentially affected study results.

 

Re: post #1514

 

Straw man:

 

"An insubstantial concept, idea, endeavor or argument, particularly one deliberately set up to be weakly supported, so that it can be easily knocked down; especially to impugn the strength of any related thing or idea."

Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 05 June 2024 - 06:48 PM.

[Galaxyshock]

1.) The study is garbage because it did not include something that "matters",  i.e. vaccination status, in making determinations about certain clinical effects of COVID-19.

 

I just think vaccination status isn't so critical that it would make the study garbage, considering there are a lot of indications that viruses (including corona viruses) are linked to psychiatric illnesses. Surely vaccine status is more important than the subjects' potato eating -status but does it determine everything I think not.

 

I'm a bit overly eager to post stuff lately without giving it a long thought, so don't take my ramblings too seriously. 

[albedo]

"...In October 2020, professors Martin Kulldorff, Sunetra Gupta and Jay Bhattacharya wrote the Great Barrington Declaration. It highlighted the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies and emphasized the need for a risk-stratified approach, focusing on protecting those at risk of severe COVID-19 while letting others resume life and acquire natural immunity.

It made so much sense from an overall public health point of view. Nonetheless, they were stigmatized, cancelled and censured, accused of being threats to public health and the greater good.

However, their courage was inspiring to many of us who had been sitting on our hands, biting our tongue, while watching the strict COVID-19 policies unfold. The fact that three esteemed professors dared to speak up encouraged us to do so too. Since then, they have been heroes of mine.

It was therefore a great honor and a privilege to be invited to speak with Jay Bhattacharya on his podcast "The Illusion of Consensus", about our research into non-specific effects of vaccines, and how it led us to study non-specific effects of COVID-19 vaccines. We also talked about public health in general, and the pressure and challenges facing scientists, who challenge dogmas.

I have rarely enjoyed a conversation that much. Among his many qualities, Prof Bhattacharya has a fantastic capability of summarizing my thoughts into small Maggi-cubes of meaning..." (Christine Stabell Benn on Linkedin)

 

[Mind]

The WHO claims a man in Mexico died of the bird flu (and of course, implying that we should all be scared, mask up, take their latest favorite vaccine, and live the rest of our lives in isolation)

 

DO. NOT. BELIEVE. THEM.

 

According to Mexican officials, the man was morbidly obese, diabetic, and on his death bed for the previous two weeks, and died of kidney and respiratory failure.......and then tested positive for bird flu.

 

The WHO and the US National media who ran with this story are dangerously incompetent at a minimum and criminally reckless at a maximum.

 

This is exactly how the overblown COVID panic got rolling. Ignore the evidence, wildly over count the deaths FROM the disease, censor everyone who disagrees, use fake social media accounts to spread lies, hide the actual data, and lie to the public. (all of which is true, verified, and well-documented to have occurred during the COVID panic).

 

Are you going to fall for it again? Will you go into a vein-popping fit of rage against anyone who asks reasonable questions....again?

Edited by Mind, 07 June 2024 - 06:10 PM.

[albedo]

So, what do we need to make of this?

https://thehill.com/...d-flu-pandemic/

[Dorian Grey]

So, what do we need to make of this?

https://thehill.com/...d-flu-pandemic/

 

Well, with a mortality rate of 25-50%, I sure hope they allow doctors to try a few things, and listen to those doctors when they announce they think they've found something that helps.  

 

Isolate at home, make sure you're alone, and call 911 if you start turning blue, will not be the "best medicine" we have for a bad news bug like this.  

 

The rule of thumb back in 1918, with the Spanish flu?  

 

https://www.palmerfo...sh-flu-in-1918/

 

When in doubt, give QUININE! 

 

“intravenous injection will prevent or astoundingly diminish the number of later progressive pneumonias and the corresponding high mortality”

“when it is evidenced that spontaneous recovery is becoming doubtful the intravenous injection of quinine is given at once”

 

And TREAT EARLY!  

 

“We do not wait to see if the disease will control itself. The earlier the injection is made the better, and to do otherwise is only to run a risk”. “It is certainly advisable to make the injection on or before the third day of the average case”

Edited by Dorian Grey, 17 June 2024 - 09:17 PM.

[Mind]

So, what do we need to make of this?

https://thehill.com/...d-flu-pandemic/

 

I don't believe anything coming from the CDC, even the former director. They lied to the public during the COVID panic and continue to hide data and suggest unscientific measures to protect from contagious disease.

 

People need to realize how unethical and incompetent the leadership of the CDC and the US "health" bureaucracy is.

 

Birds and humans/primates have lived together for millions of years and there has NEVER been a bird flu pandemic that wiped out people to the tune of 50% mortality.

 

The only reason a bird flu pandemic could develop is because of the gain-of-function research that was conducted by Fauci, Collins, Daszak, and Google-funded Ecohealth.

[albedo]

New Insights into Acute and Long Covid (Eric Topol)

 

https://erictopol.su...edRedirect=true

 

 

Interesting the comment on the role (really not new!) of innate immunity:

 

"... There appeared to be 2 explanations for the protection from a sustained infection, Either a heightened early Interferon-1 (IFN-1) response of the innate immune response or higher levels of mRNA that encodes for the HLA-DQA2 protein ,..."

[albedo]

On the controversy of the lab leak theory:

 

https://www.nytimes....d-lab-leak.html

 

https://pauloffit.su.../lab-leak-mania

[Daniel Cooper]

On the controversy of the lab leak theory:

 

https://www.nytimes....d-lab-leak.html

 

https://pauloffit.su.../lab-leak-mania

 

Isn't it a strange journey we've been on for the last four years?

 

In 2020/2021 saying out loud that covid-19 probably came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology was enough to get you kicked off of every single major social media platform, labeled a "right-wing conspiracy theory MAGA kook", and possibly lose you your job and professional career if you were in the medical industry.

 

Now no less than the New York Times publishes "Why the Pandemic Probably Started in a Lab, in 5 Key Points".

 

Great, I'm glad they've come around in their thinking. But where is the mea culpa? Where is the "We're so sorry we canceled you and tried to ruin your life, please accept our apologies".

[albedo]

So, what do we need to make of this?

https://thehill.com/...d-flu-pandemic/

 

I guess reassuring for many and to be considered if a new "panic" wave arises. Also, AFAICR a vaccine already exists, just in case?

https://go.nature.com/3xUdesg
 

Edited by albedo, 11 July 2024 - 09:59 AM.

[albedo]

"...Take the United States. By October 2022, almost two years after the first COVID-19 vaccines were rolled out, 80% of people in the country aged six months and older had received at least one dose. However, only 33% had received a follow-up booster, which offers the highest possible level of protection against the SARS-CoV-2 virus..."

doi: https://doi.org/10.1...586-024-02224-9

Not a surprise considering the split, conflicting, panicking way in which many Countries have reacted. I claim nothing but which lessons have we learned, how can we do better, where are the follow up studies? Politics is everything and bad politics and communication is explosive.

[joesixpack]

That is quite a quote for a July, 2024 article. Taking the original covid vaccine, and the booster 2 weeks later "offers the highest possible level of protection"? If that is the case, why are they still trying to get people to take "boosters" every three months?

 

I think it is now common knowledge that the MRNA vaccine is neither safe, nor effective in preventing infection, or transmission of the disease.

 

Creating a new MRNA vaccine for the (suspiciously predicted, election year) bird flu pandemic, will likely result in very few people taking it. And few people accepting the measures that were imposed during the Covid nonsense.

[Mind]

The NIH is still trying to run the COVID fear campaign with its latest study about COVID reinfection. It turns out, just like the original outbreak (which was similar to a bad flu season), people (27%) who are old with co-morbidities might be hospitalized if they get re-infected. No surprise there. No reason for the NIH to get hysterical about it. 

 

 

 

All this study shows is that those who are in poor health, have underlying conditions, or are older, are more likely to need additional care if they get Covid a second time. Even then, 73% of those who had a second infection and were hospitalized the first time did not need hospitalization for the second infection. Sure enough, the vast, vast majority of those who had mild Covid cases the first time had mild Covid cases the second time.

 

[Daniel Cooper]

Heard a Public Service Announcement on the car radio at lunch.

 

Words to the effects "Don't give up before the fight is over! Masks and Vaccines save lives! Talk to your doctor about getting the latest Covid vaccine!".

 

I was a bit flabbergasted. Nobody is getting vaccinated where I live. Maybe a handful of people but a statistically insignificant number. Also, I haven't run into anyone that had gotten significantly ill from a covid infection for well over a year now. Probably over two years.

 

Is this government overreach, or is it just dumb government running on autopilot? I really couldn't say at this point.

[albedo]

"The rapid global spread of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) at the beginning of 2020 presented the world with its greatest health challenge in decades. It soon became clear that governments were unprepared to respond appropriately to this crisis. National and international public health authorities were confused about the transmission routes of the virus and the control measures required to protect against it. In particular, the need to reduce the risk of infection through sufficient and effective ventilation of indoor spaces was given little attention. In this review, we discuss insights and key lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the role of ventilation as an effective means against airborne transmission of pathogens and, more broadly, for supporting good indoor air quality."

 

Morawska L, Li Y, Salthammer T. Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic for ventilation and indoor air quality. Science. 2024;385(6707):396-401.
https://www.science....science.adp2241