Covid III: Delta Force

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, T-Shirt said:

II is true that the Elgazzer study was fraudulent.  However, according the authors, this did not affect the data.  I am not taking a stand on the use of Ivermectin, but I am increasingly suspicious of serious shenanigans going on to demonize it.  Here is the meta analysis, it is quite long, but please read the whole thing.  They are very thorough and include thorough responses to those who are critical of their study.

https://ivmmeta.com/#tp

So the frauds who created the fraudulent study have assured you that despite the fraud the data is accurate? That fills me with confidence.

Want to invest in my latest venture? Sure, it was identified as a Ponzi scheme by those who examined it but I ASSURE YOU that it will still pay out in the end. Wouldn’t want to miss out would you?

[T-Shirt]

33 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So the frauds who created the fraudulent study have assured you that despite the fraud the data is accurate? That fills me with confidence.

Want to invest in my latest venture? Sure, it was identified as a Ponzi scheme by those who examined it but I ASSURE YOU that it will still pay out in the end. Wouldn’t want to miss out would you?

As a certain poster would say, "WRONG.  NO."". 

Are you paying attention or are  you just so hell bent on demonizing people and things that you have no idea what is going on?

 

 

[The Nehor]

6 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

As a certain poster would say, "WRONG.  NO."". 

Are you paying attention or are  you just so hell bent on demonizing people and things that you have no idea what is going on?

Oh……so they are saying the authors who decided to use the fraudulent study decided the data was still good? So, instead of the frauds who wrote the original study telling us it is still okay it is the hacks putting together a website full of garbage designed to spew a narrative the frauds were trying to support say the data from the fraudulent study is okay? Should have been more specific. It is important to know which frauds are saying the bad data is actually good data because they said so.

Glad we cleared that up. Makes it so much better.

 

 

 

Not really though. Still all misinformation and deception.

Edited November 13, 2021 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

Here is the same video if that does not work right for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nD6Q9X0SFw

[T-Shirt]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

Oh……so they are saying the authors who decided to use the fraudulent study decided the data was still good? So, instead of the frauds who wrote the original study telling us it is still okay it is the hacks putting together a website full of garbage designed to spew a narrative virtually every expert says is faulty that say the data from the fraudulent study is okay? Should have been more specific.

Glad we cleared that up. Makes it so much better.

 

 

 

Not really though. Still all misinformation and deception.

No, not even close.  You really should read something instead of rushing to trash things and making yourself look clueless.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Day 3 for us of having no active Covid cases in hospital, and day 4 of no Covid-related hospital presentations as well. Great news.

This morning we received some interesting data regarding the Delta outbreak in our jurisdiction:

• of confirmed Delta infections, 7 per cent have required hospitalisation
• only 5 per cent of those admitted to hospital were fully vaccinated (5 per cent of 7 per cent equals 0.35 per cent overall), which means that the likelihood of hospitalisation has been exactly 19 times greater for the unvaccinated who fall sick
• with our high rate of vaccination (96 per cent of everyone age 12+ as of yesterday), currently 21 per cent of confirmed cases are in fully vaccinated people
• but no fully vaccinated person with a breakthrough Delta infection has been admitted to ICU
• we still have people in hospital being treated for the damage Delta has done to their bodies, but none of them has an active infection
• (I personally know two people, a woman in our stake and a man whose mum is a member, who are also recovering at home following stays in ICU, both with serious, potentially lifelong, damage to their lungs and other organs; presumably, there are others)
• 0.6 per cent of confirmed Delta infections have died

Edited November 13, 2021 by Hamba Tuhan

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Pres Nelson: 'We have prayed for this literal godsend'.

[T-Shirt]

The Nehor chooses not too read the information on this website:

https://ivmmeta.com

He seems to find it so much easier to label it, "all misinformation and deception" without even knowing what is there.  This website provides a meta analysis of studies done on the effectiveness of Ivermectin for the treatment on Covid 19.  The analysis includes 65 studies.  It is very thorough and updated regularly and, among many other things, includes their response, in great detail, to the organizations who have been critical of their analysis.  It has a lot of valuable information. 

One study that has been done was  Elgazzar et al, which was shown to be fraudulent.  The meta analysis removed the study from their works as soon as it was made known that the study was flawed.  The person most quoted by the media in opposition to this meta analysis is a man named Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a phd student blogger who writes for The Guardian.  He claimed that when the Elgazzar study was removed from the analysis, it completely changes the results and could be "the most consequential medical fraud ever committed".  This turns out not to be true, yet he is still touted as an, "expert" and is relied upon by many media outlets for information.  The website provides all of the details and responds to his many criticisms as well as the criticisms of others.  It is very important to read the information on the website and then respond to it if you think something is wrong or misleading.  Blowing it off as trash or misinformation is lazy.

I don't yet know what is the full truth of this matter, but I do not trust anyone who, instead of making a real, informed argument, resorts to bullying, name calling and false reporting.

Edited November 13, 2021 by T-Shirt

[Calm]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

they are saying the authors who decided to use the fraudulent study decided the data was still good?

I believe they are saying they removed the fraudulent data (three studies I believe were removed when they were retracted or flagged) and ran the meta analysis with the remaining studies again and came up with even better results. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Calm

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

The analysis includes 65 studies

My question is how many studies of Covid and ivermectin are out there and how he chooses which to include and which he doesn’t.  What he starts with determines what he ends up with.
65 trash studies still gives you trash. Half trash studies, half good studies…not trusting that either.
 

Have you seen the process of how he chooses?The format is too difficult for me to focus on for too long at the time. 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Calm

[T-Shirt]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

My question is how many studies of Covid and ivermectin are out there and how he chooses which to include and which he doesn’t.  What he starts with determines what he ends up with.
Have you seen the process of how he chooses?The format is too difficult for me to focus on for too long at the time. 

Yes, it is all on the website, in great detail.  I know it is a lot to read, but if you skim past past some of the more technical stuff, they show how they put all the data together.  If I find some time, I will try to pull out some of the pertinent information, but no guarantees, I have a very busy weekend.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Yes, it is all on the website, in great detail.  I know it is a lot to read, but if you skim past past some of the more technical stuff, they show how they put all the data together.  If I find some time, I will try to pull out some of the pertinent information, but no guarantees, I have a very busy weekend.

I am less concerned with how they put the data together than with how they find and choose to use a particular study. Does it report that?

Edited November 13, 2021 by Calm

[T-Shirt]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I am less concerned with how they put the data together than with how they find and choose to use a particular study. Does it report that?

Yes, they explain that.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

Yes, they explain that.

If you can point me to that section, that is all I need at the moment…and likely ever. I will let others deal with the methodology of analysis. Been away from statistics too long to remember anything but the basics. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, T-Shirt said:

The Nehor chooses not too read the information on this website:

https://ivmmeta.com

He seems to find it so much easier to label it, "all misinformation and deception" without even knowing what is there.  This website provides a meta analysis of studies done on the effectiveness of Ivermectin for the treatment on Covid 19.  The analysis includes 65 studies.  It is very thorough and updated regularly and, among many other things, includes their response, in great detail, to the organizations who have been critical of their analysis.  It has a lot of valuable information. 

One study that has been done was  Elgazzar et al, which was shown to be fraudulent.  The meta analysis removed the study from their works as soon as it was made known that the study was flawed.  The person most quoted by the media in opposition to this meta analysis is a man named Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, a phd student blogger who writes for The Guardian.  He claimed that when the Elgazzar study was removed from the analysis, it completely changes the results and could be "the most consequential medical fraud ever committed".  This turns out not to be true, yet he is still touted as an, "expert" and is relied upon by many media outlets for information.  The website provides all of the details and responds to his many criticisms as well as the criticisms of others.  It is very important to read the information on the website and then respond to it if you think something is wrong or misleading.  Blowing it off as trash or misinformation is lazy.

I don't yet know what is the full truth of this matter, but I do not trust anyone who, instead of making a real, informed argument, resorts to bullying, name calling and false reporting.

I read through quite a bit of it. I would go into why the stats methodology is fundamentally flawed but I chose a different method because that would probably be boring.

It is not lazy to dismiss information that is fundamentally wrong. Once someone lies about a few things in their analysis there is no reason to go through the rest hoping for nuggets of truth. You can kick the witness out of court as not worth your time.

In case anyone is interested here is an older Twitter thread where a stat guy breaks down some of the statistical problems and there are a LOT OF THEM. Maybe the weirdo who made the site ‘fixed’ these problems but I can’t trust anyone who publishes a statistical model and is this ignorant or deceptive about statistics. These are the kinds of thing that would get you flunked out of a stats class or bomb a peer-reviewed paper.

Again, the person behind this website is arbitrarily cherry-picking data, is torturing data to fit into their theory, and doesn’t understand how statistics works or is hoping the reader doesn’t. Honestly I think it is the latter. They seem to have enough surface-level knowledge and a grasp of terminology that suggests they know exactly how they are screwing up.

[bsjkki]

https://www.newsweek.com/sleep-disorders-could-lead-worse-covid-outcomes-study-finds-1648775?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1636779915

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.newsweek.com/sleep-disorders-could-lead-worse-covid-outcomes-study-finds-1648775?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1636779915

Yeah, I am going to get my booster next week. 

[Raingirl]

2 minutes ago, Calm said:

Yeah, I am going to get my booster next week. 

I’ve been trying to schedule a booster with no luck so far.  It’s proving to be just as hard, if not harder, than trying to get my first shot when there were only a couple of of locations offered by the state, except now you can get it at pharmacies and (finally!) through one’s own doctor. But no one has any appointments available.

Kind of puzzling when you think of all the people who are refusing to get vaccinated. 

It’s very frustrating. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

Ok, got my Moderna booster dose, a full 14 months after my initial doses.  I joined the Moderna phase-3 trial in 2020.   I'm in the part of the study that gives half a normal dose as booster, to see what happens.  The Moderna folks are very concerned about the instances of myocarditis and pericarditis from the vaccines and booster.  Last year, I got maybe a bloodtest every 2-3 months.  For the booster, I'll have three blood draws over the next two months, with 2-3X the normal phone check-ins.  If I have even the slightest chest or arm issue, I'm to call them immediately.  (It's so they can gather data, not because the believe I'm in danger.)  They told me most of the vaccine-caused inflamed heart issues are occurring in younger men and boys, so it's doubtful anything will happen to older me. 

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ok, got my Moderna booster dose, a full 14 months after my initial doses.  I joined the Moderna phase-3 trial in 2020.   I'm in the part of the study that gives half a normal dose as booster, to see what happens.  The Moderna folks are very concerned about the instances of myocarditis and pericarditis from the vaccines and booster.  Last year, I got maybe a bloodtest every 2-3 months.  For the booster, I'll have three blood draws over the next two months, with 2-3X the normal phone check-ins.  If I have even the slightest chest or arm issue, I'm to call them immediately.  (It's so they can gather data, not because the believe I'm in danger.)  They told me most of the vaccine-caused inflamed heart issues are occurring in younger men and boys, so it's doubtful anything will happen to older me. 

Thank you for being a part of clinical trials so that the rest of us can be more safe with the vaccines.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Ok, got my Moderna booster dose, a full 14 months after my initial doses.  I joined the Moderna phase-3 trial in 2020.   I'm in the part of the study that gives half a normal dose as booster, to see what happens.  The Moderna folks are very concerned about the instances of myocarditis and pericarditis from the vaccines and booster.  Last year, I got maybe a bloodtest every 2-3 months.  For the booster, I'll have three blood draws over the next two months, with 2-3X the normal phone check-ins.  If I have even the slightest chest or arm issue, I'm to call them immediately.  (It's so they can gather data, not because the believe I'm in danger.)  They told me most of the vaccine-caused inflamed heart issues are occurring in younger men and boys, so it's doubtful anything will happen to older me. 

Thanks for sharing, very interesting.

Quote

Thank you for being a part of clinical trials so that the rest of us can be more safe with the vaccines.

Amen to that.

Out of rep points for now.  Was quite surprised to see two “popular” posts together come up when I finally clicked on this thread today.  Bet it is a record of some sort (have seen some separated by a couple of posts, there is something striking about them being a couple, framed in green on my IPad screen  ).

Edited November 15, 2021 by Calm

[bsjkki]

https://m.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/no-matter-how-old-you-are-two-shots-of-pfizer-vaccine-dont-last-study-685141

 

Edited November 16, 2021 by bsjkki

[Tacenda]

I've been sub'g quite a bit, and students as young as 1st grade got the vaccine. Call me surprised!

[Calm]

51 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I've been sub'g quite a bit, and students as young as 1st grade got the vaccine. Call me surprised!

Granddaughter gets it on Friday. She is ten. We will all be vaxxed then of those who are frequently in my home. Feel like recluses right now, but given the circumstances can endure that as long as my son’s family stays connected. We limited contact for a couple of months prevaccine when numbers went up locally. That was awful. 

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, bsjkki said:

https://m.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/coronavirus/no-matter-how-old-you-are-two-shots-of-pfizer-vaccine-dont-last-study-685141

 

What I find annoying in this kind or irresponsible journalism is what they imply. They state that it wanes (this is true of almost every vaccine) which is true but never establish by how much. Does it fall to around 90% of previous effectiveness? 80%? 50%? It just seems like alarmism designed to generate clicks.