Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by blarsen

  1. I would greatly appreciate it. And assume we could communicate through our MD&D account information. I've actually done consulting work for a group doing BofM-related archaeology in Oman, and oddly enough, was the one who found a 'significant' archaeoastronomy site at the location we were studying. Such things are fascinating to me.
  2. Navidad, are you still there? Any idea when your wife's cousin will complete his book, who the publisher will be, etc.? I definitely want to glom on to it when available.
  3. I see that Raingirl remains my inveterate supporter😉 Not.
  4. You're correct when you say "The fight for a particular therapy is between doctor and patient", but I would insert: "should be" for the "is" in this statement. Unfortunately (in my view and the view of my RN wife), most doctors are under the thrall of hospital protocols, especially those working directly for a hospital, and in the case of a physician working outside of a hospital, they are constrained by the protocols of a hospital they may refer a patient to for surgery, etc. The power of the hospital administration is largely driven by money . . . . they don't follow the protocols, especially those put forth for COVID treatment, they don't get the money. And actually, there are many doctors who are prescribing sequential multi-drug therapies that may or may not include hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and with excellent results. Unfortunately, the majority fear the consequences for doing so.
  5. Spoken like a true Trudeau supporter. You're welcome to it.
  6. Sorry. I've been very busy of late. Actually, I don't recall that you rebutted much. You said something like the papers and evidence McCullough's is using supporting HCQ effectiveness dealt with only small numbers of people in the studies. Nice assertion, but you would have to do a pretty close survey of McCullough's position for that one to stick. You also made a rather snide comment about my positive direct experience with using alternative therapies with my family and others being only a placebo effect.
  7. A clear example of the tragedies resulting from the official narrative.
  8. Oh, the Lancet. I assume you aren’t aware of the article published in The Lancet May of 2020 claiming that HCQ actually makes the symptoms of COVID-19 worse. Several monitors pointed out the false data/analysis used in the article forcing the Lancet to withdraw if after publication. If these critics had not stepped up to the plate, the article would probably still be out there hooking in any number of gullible readers. Here’s just one article on this subject: https://thefederalist.com/2020/06/04/lancet-formally-retracts-fake-hydroxychloroquine-study-used-by-media-to-attack-trump-inbox/ So, The Lancet is taking a fall-back position that it has no effect, using a metadata analysis. That’s nice. And how many articles out of the 3,000 did the authors actually use. Not many, from my scan of it. One would have to ask McCullough why he narrowed the field down to 250. From my experience of the man, he would have a very good explanation for what he did. I’ve simply learned from fairly long experience to take almost any official position with a grain of salt when the topic is highly, highly controversial and has powerful political implications. You’re not there, obviously . . . . yet.
  9. I like your first sentence and agree with it . . . . if you were applying it to adverse reactions to the COVID-19 shots. My guess is that there are probably millions of adverse reactions to the COVID shots that are not reported, partially because of disbelief, embarrassment, belief they aren't severe enough, etc. I've known far more people in my circle of family, friends and acquaintances or those they know, who have suffered from these things after COVID shots, than I have of people hospitalized or dying of COVID.
  10. I meant "head butting" with you. Nothing I bring up is likely to persuade you to a different view. My view, as well as many others with expert credentials monitoring the situation, is that "people are needlessly dying" both from alternative therapies for COVID being maligned and ignored, and from mRNA vaccine damage. So there you are. A stand off.
  11. My understanding has been that it was H.R.5540 - Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, that required physicians to report ‘adverse events’ to include deaths, due to vaccinations. VAERS was created about 4 years later more as an early warning system, though physicians using VAERS to make their ‘required’ reports is probably the main way they do it now, if they even think to do it. Apparently, as “of 2:30 PM CT on July 21, 2021, the CDC's website modified the number of VAERS reports related to COVID-19 vaccination deaths from 12,313 to 6,079, through July 13, 2021”. (See: https://www.precisionvaccinations.com/covid-19-vaccine-related-fatalities-updated ) Why did they do this? According to some of their critics, they did this because they excluded any deaths that occurred within 14 days of a patient getting vaccinated, because they judged it takes that amount of time for the vaccination to take full effect; i.e., up to that time you aren’t considered fully vaccinated. Then you have the under-reporting of AE’s to include deaths, to the system, anyway. Can you cite any doctors losing their medical license from a State Board of Health for NOT reporting to VAERS, etc.? I doubt it. But it’s not worth head butting about. I’ve read enough articles documenting the malfeasance and compromised nature of the CDC and FDA in certain respects, not across the board necessarily; particularly via ‘Big Pharma’, to be convinced otherwise. Based on some of your posted comments, you don’t strike me as someone who has lost their faith in the ‘system’ . . . . yet.
  12. But as the VAERS web site says about its database system, "it's a passive system". And you are bound to get a small number of kookie entries from the ~15% lay people making entries. But even counting those in your 2nd listing, the fraction is minuscule and doesn't much effect the thrust of the information about adverse reactions to include deaths, which constitute serious numbers. Especially when you consider that they are probably under-reported by a factor of at least 5 and possibly much more. My view is that funds should be allocated to: 1) verify and clean up the reports; 2) seriously address the issue of adverse events reported to include deaths, for which effort autopsies should be performed where possible . . . . . . at least on a percentage of them.
  13. What was the search expression you used, to include your exclusion clause that allowed you to screen out the other symptoms, and did you include all 4 symptom columns, or focus just on the 1st column. My sense is that your list loses validity if you ignore other listed symptoms for the same VAERS ID. And the 436 events reported with these odd 'symptoms' constitute only a small fraction of the total COVID-related report IDs (~ 0.000541)
  14. I tend to agree with this, except, part-libertarian that I am, I don't much like 'mandates' regarding communication and threads, or against much else that doesn't involve direct harm or threat to others, or violation of a boards guidelines and rules.
  15. And what might be your own particular "other place", which we might all emulate?
  16. The increases only really kicked in after the shots were initiated in early 2021 from all I've read on the subject. Also the nature of death including symptoms play into this assumption on the part of the undertakers. I've seen and read many testimonies of adverse events happening very shortly after the shots, many of them tragic and heartbreaking. Two of these, as I've mentioned, were in my wife's family. By all accounts from the people I regard as experts on the subject, the main culprit is the artificially created spike protein. Allowing the body to create an artificial antigen via an injected mRNA sequence, seems like insanity to me, especially without rigorous long-term testing. But you folks here are welcome to your views of the matter. I just thought it might be beneficial to some of the readers on this board to hear an opposing view.
  17. Well, it sounds like your country is on the right track regarding AE reporting. What country is that by the way?
  18. Can you quantify this assertion? I've read similar claims and even looked into a couple, but they amount to a very small percentage of the whole. I've got a copy of the VAERS report forms and instructions, and they really aren't conducive to this kind of idiocy.
  19. Actually, hospital protocols have been interpreted to strongly imply that key elements of these therapies should be denied. And they are, almost across the board. You apparently haven't heard, read or listened to the myriad testimonies of this reality. Perhaps, now, hospitals are loosening up. I hope so. As a simple test, go to your primary care physician and ask him/her for a prescription for hydroxchloroquine and/or ivermectin and why you want it, to see what he/she says. The next test would be to see if your local pharmacy will even issue it if the doctor does prescribe it. There are many reports of pharmacies unwilling to fill these prescriptions. And you have to be more specific about what you regard as anecdotal, and therefore, non-evidence. For my friend hearing about the cadaver count from the owner of a well-known local Funeral Home, this information is a first-hand account of his friends direct experience. For me, its 2nd hand. Now, yes, you could call it anecdotal evidence unless my friend went down to the morgue and did the count with its director friend. It then becomes direct evidence to my friend. Same with you. But for both of us, because of the trust we have with one another, the current information is good evidence, even though anecdotal.
  20. VAERS is essentially a passive system. McCullough claims that about 85% of the reports are filled out by physicians. The rest of the reports are filled out by the ones suffering from the 'adverse events' or those close to them; but these are encouraged to fill in information about their attending physicians, etc., who oversaw the shots and could verify the bad reaction. Being a passive system, the reports filed, probably cover something like 1 out of 5 events that actually occurred, with estimates as low as 1 out 10 or more. Hard to imagine that a significant number of these reports would be falsely filed. And yes, VAERS was meant to be an early warning system tracking adverse events for a given vaccine, which would and should encourage further investigation. Unfortunately, follow up has been sadly neglected in the case of the mRNA shots. Funding should be allocated for both verification and medical investigations into the claims, to include autopsies. Your "animal bites" comment comes across as rather snide . . . . don't you think?
  21. McCullough, himself, recognizes that the vaccine has some ameliorative effect in certain cases. But both he and many, many, many others are direct witnesses to very horrible and adverse effects from them . . . in certain cases. And there are statistical studies of the VAERS database indicating the bad effects are limited to certain lots of the vaccines. And I am direct witness to the almost immediate ameliorative/good effects from the use of alternative therapies for several people in my immediate and extended family and my circle of friends. We are fortunate (in a way) because my wife has been taking Plaquenil (hydroxychloroquine) for almost 30 years for a condition she has, so we have a good supply, and have dispensed it to those we know need it. The effect is nothing like the placebo effect Nehor would like to limit it to. Based on her experience with this drug and being an RN, enabled her to immediately detect the lies Fauci was indulging in about it. This is one of the reasons we started getting really interested in such things. Additionally, I'm directly aware of some of the horrible and bad effects of the 'vaccines' from my wife's immediate family and people close to friends of mine, to include our dentist. Finally, a week ago, a close friend told me what a friend of his who runs a well-known Funeral Home told him about the skyrocketing monthly body count they are dealing with and the strange, very long and never before seen blood clots they are encountering during embalming. He also said that all the Funeral Homes he is aware of are experiencing the same thing. His counts went from a normal monthly high of an occasional 100, up to 120, this past month, with the increase being steady over the past few months. The same thing is being reported in many Funeral Parlors in several countries. I'm not trying to argue with anybody. This is simply testimonial from my experience and knowledge of certain data/information.
  22. I'll leave the anger to you. Your article certainly seemed to step on the toes of the modeling group from the Imperial College of London, particularly Neils Ferguson, who one could consider Mr. Lockdown due to his exaggerated covid mortality rate models. His apparent prediction that lockdowns would reduce mortality by 98% certainly is in contrast to the Herby paper prediction of 2.9% for SIPO lockdowns. Seems to be a very controversial topic. Regarding lockdowns, even the exaggerated mortality rates from COVID-19, don't justify the "enormous economic and social costs where they have been adopted". These consequences faaaar outway the devastation attributed to COVID itself, in my strongly held view. And in so far as they result in 'Vaccine Passports', etc., even more so. Just look at the Trucker protests in Canada and the draconian measures Trudeau is taking to combat them? Doesn't this kind of governmental intrusion and tyranny worry any of you folks, even a little bit?? If not, I'm astonished.
  23. You've certainly got your mind made up, eh? Once again, McCullough has determined that there exist ~250 papers displaying studies that indicate the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment/amelioration of COVID-19, or the the illness caused by the earlier version of the SARS-CoV virus. He also says that there are over 60 papers doing the same for ivermectin, with about 30 of these using random trials. I'm aware of your previous response to this information, but am not too impressed. In my view, McCullough is one of the most impressive presenters I've ever encountered; very articulate and able to marshal names, dates, titles, locations, etc., etc., effortlessly without notes. It's no wonder that he was on the editorial board or the chief editor of 3 or more prestigious medical journals. I have a neighbor, a PhD epidemiologist (also married to PhD in a biological science), who actually participated, along with members of his family, in the Pfizer mRNA 'vaccine' test trials, who was very knowledgeable and impressed w/McCullough's past achievements. I updated him on what McCullough was doing with the COVID narrative, but never got a reply. If you actually listened to the man with an open mind, you would find the allegation that he is a liar, ludicrous to the extreme.
  24. As I mentioned, from my studied point of view, 'official' statistics leave a lot to be desired in terms of not knowing exactly how valid their determination of COVID cases or deaths are, or how pristine the motives are of the organizations that come up with them. If it were my brother and his family living in Singapore, I would be very eager to acquaint them with the efficacy of alternative therapies for COVID-19. I would also try to talk him out of taking the mRNA COVID shots, if at all possible, Of course you won't do this, if you haven't given a serious open minded study of this issue and come to the conclusion these therapies are extremely valuable for COVID-19. I personally try to use the multiple hypotheses approach when I survey controversial issues. I highly recommend this approach. The official COVID-19 story, to include the narrative of the efficacy of the COVID mRNA shots is an extremely powerful one. Very tough to resist, with world-wide pressure being brought to bear in pushing it everywhere. Some countries are resorting to outright tyrannical methods in doing so. Again, what should worry you is the mounting evidence that these shots are not as a benign as we have been led to believe. Death rates have been skyrocketing in the past year as evidenced by many insurance company payouts for deaths going up radically; body counts for many, many funeral homes are going through the roof with concomitant increase in their overall share values; not to mention leaked information from the military of high death rates of military personnel who have taken the shots, or the information coming out about the fraudulent trial tests for the vaccines, particularly Moderna. And of course, there is the VAERS data base supporting this idea. Moderna stock has plummet 70% in the past few days due this type of information surfacing. Pfizer is down 19%. To get an overview of this situation, you may want to watch an interview of Edward Dowd, who has been an advisor for Blackrock and a general market player and 'futurist', in terms of predicting stockmarket trends and values. The interview of Dowd is at: https://futurenews.news/watch?id=620eac26dac6860c0a32d2ae The interviewer is Alex Jones, which will probably put you off because of AJ's negative press. But this gets us back to necessity of trying to lay your prejudices aside and using multiple hypotheses when surveying any data, especially controversial data.
  25. I'm in a different camp than you. My last two posts are an indication of where I'm coming from, having spent the last 2 years+ intensely studying and analyzing as much data as I can get my hands on, and having had direct experience with what I'm talking about. Getting into arguments about statistics can be endless, especially when they deal with issues such as the very questionable methods used to determine incidents of covid and covid deaths in the first place, even given that the death/incident statistics may reflect reality to some degree. The thing that I've never been able to wrap my mind around, is the almost universal deprecation and suppression of alternative COVID therapies by 'authoritative' sources. This makes no logical sense to me, whatsoever. Especially when these alternative therapies are essentially non-invasive and safe, and in some cases, already employ proven drugs, though in an 'off-label' usage. My posts on this topic are more testimonial than anything. I've already spent countless hours in discussions with people, directly or on other boards about these things, and seldom is there any real discussion or pick-up or any serious consideration of alternative views by those who subscribe to the official COVID narrative.
  • Create New...