- This topic is empty.
January 25, 2021 at 19:41 #66026SA
“Dr Irwin Redlener, the director of Columbia University’s Pandemic Resource and Response Initiative, added:
“Simone Gold is a toxic purveyor of misinformation, now actively contributing to rightwing extremist rhetoric that continues to rile up people determined to hang on to the most egregious Donald Trump lies.”
That [Dr Simone Gold] is the Dr in Dave’s linkJanuary 25, 2021 at 21:39 #66059SA
“ A key conservative doctors’ group pushing misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines faces growing fire from medical experts about its woeful scientific grounding, while its leader, Dr Simone Gold, was charged early this week for taking part in the 6 January attack on the Capitol.”
This is Simone Gold who features in Dave’s YouTube video in the last page. Tea party, sponsored by the rich Trump supporter and Capitol hooligan A key conservative doctors’ group pushing misinformation about Covid-19 vaccines faces growing fire from medical experts about its woeful scientific grounding, while its leader, Dr Simone Gold, was charged early this week for taking part in the 6 January attack on the Capitol.
That’s the sort of camp that Dave wants us to believe in.
Koplan offered a blunt verdict on Gold’s work: “The results of this dismissal of science takes a heavy toll on lives and health.”
The Guardian – ‘Wilful ignorance’: doctor who joined Capitol attack condemned for Covid falsehoods – Experts denounce Simone Gold, charged for participating in riot, who leads conservative group America’s Frontline DoctorsJanuary 25, 2021 at 21:58 #66060ET
She mentions in the beginning that the first real decpetion was that it wasn’t named the wuhan virus. Seriously? I despair. Who cares what it’s called. Thereafter all the usual guff about hydroxychloroquine, zinc etc.January 25, 2021 at 22:13 #66061glenn_uk
I’m shocked, shocked I tell ya – the only reference Dave has is a complete crank? What, he doesn’t have an entire group of Nobel prize winning medical experts providing his opinion?
In fairness, I have to admit that Dave has done us a solid here, by providing numerous examples of how these hucksters, grifters, frauds, snake-oil salesmen – call them what you will – all work the same cheesy lines.
Dave – how about some credible references to your, erm, interesting assertions? Cranks and grifters don’t count, I’m afraid.
“Proof by repeated assertion” is not generally accepted as a logical validation of a point either, sorry.January 25, 2021 at 22:53 #66063Clark
Dave, rather than a YouTube link where anyone can post anything regardless of its accuracy, please link to these claims by Dr Simone Gold in the scientific literature.
If there is none, please explain to me why this is.
If these claims do not withstand scientific scrutiny, how do you justify them being presented directly to the public on YouTube?January 25, 2021 at 23:16 #66065Clark
SA, 12:06 – “According to ONS ( see link below) there has not been the large number of deaths in care homes in the second wave as in the first.”
I’ve no idea how widespread the practice my friend experienced is. However, it is interesting that Dave used lateral flow tests to bolster his conspiracy theory, thus:
– “I assume your not familiar with the PCR test which records many false positives compared to the lateral flow test, which shows otherwise healthy people to be positive, triggering the numbers needed for more lockdowns and restrictions. They know about the false positives, but keep them in the official figures, to manipulate/scaremonger public opinion.”
“Them”, the perpetually undefined but ever expandable conspiracy.
In fact the “conspiracy” is the other way around, and informal; a convergence of incorrectly perceived interests of many on the right, to deceive the public that there is no danger. Eventually, when our economy is at death’s door, they may actually look at the figures for economic performance and realise that the people are the economy:
– “Have the countries experiencing the largest economic decline performed better in protecting the nation’s health, as we would expect if there was a trade-off?
– Contrary to the idea of a trade-off, we see that countries which suffered the most severe economic downturns – like Peru, Spain and the UK – are generally among the countries with the highest COVID-19 death rate.
– And the reverse is also true: countries where the economic impact has been modest – like Taiwan, South Korea, and Lithuania – have also managed to keep the death rate low.”January 26, 2021 at 14:59 #66175Dave
It was a very interesting speech by Dr Simone Gold, but immediately illegally deleted by Corporate U-tube. Illegal because they are meant to be a platform/notice board not a publisher. But there was nothing in the speech that merited deletion, but revealing they have the power to do it, whoever they are, but revealing links attacking her, rather than rebutting her comments, remain up.January 26, 2021 at 15:19 #66179glenn_uk
Dave the Denier: “[…] but revealing they have the power to do it, whoever they are, […]”
Go on, Dave, who are “they” – do tell! You must have some idea? Some shadowy organisation that manipulates everything in the background, no doubt. Would “they” be a particular race, perchance? You must have given quite some thought to it.
Clark is probably right, the “they” in this case are Jews, right Dave? Hadn’t occurred to me before Clark’s post, but given your sympathy for the BNP, far-right groups, the Trump criminal and associated conspiracy theories of every kind, it’s not a stretch to suppose you have leanings toward white supremacists too.
The Jews are behind it all, right Dave?January 26, 2021 at 16:15 #66186Clark
The scientific literature, Dave; I asked for your take on where Gold’s proposals are there, not “anyone can post anything” YouTube. I want to know why this is being presented directly to the public, rather than to Gold’s professional peers who will know the right questions to ask, and which studies are relevant.January 26, 2021 at 17:23 #66201ET
Here is a pretty good summary of the chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine trials and also a good discussion related to its safety and experience of use in other conditions.
You might be interested to know Dave that there is an ongoing randomised, placebo-controlled pre-exposure prophylaxis study to determine whether chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine prevents coronavirus disease (COVID-19) called CAPCOV.January 26, 2021 at 17:53 #66204ET
“It was a very interesting speech by Dr Simone Gold, but immediately illegally deleted by Corporate U-tube.”
I disagree and immediately understood it was a political not scientific presentation when she refers to not calling it wuhan virus and references naming 1918 flu pandemic Spanish flu as an argument. The 1918 flu didn’t originate in Spain. And who the hell cares what it’s named.
” Illegal because they are meant to be a platform/notice board not a publisher”
That maybe what you want them to be. Google is an advertising company, your attention is the product they sell to advertisers. They can do what they want in regards to what they will and will not post. I wouldn’t necessarily disagree with you were you to say it shouldn’t be like that but ( a whole other discussion), for now, that is the situation.
“there was nothing in the speech that merited deletion”
Their guidelines are available to read.January 26, 2021 at 21:16 #66216Clark
– “It was a very interesting speech by Dr Simone Gold, but immediately illegally deleted by Corporate U-tube.”
Maybe they were under pressure and it showed up on their manometer (geek joke).January 26, 2021 at 21:17 #66217Dave
They, sorry I meant them, whoever them are! Who owns the company, or is that immaterial? Dr Gold highlighted how Lancet (very important scientific literature) carried a fake report, later removed, about an hydroxychloroquine effective therapeutic. Why would them do that?January 26, 2021 at 21:43 #66218ET
The Lancet deservedly got much criticism for that nonsense. They did however withdraw the article when made to see what had happened. Still doesn’t prove there is a world wide cabal of black turtle neck sweatered Dr.No’s stroking white fluffy cats calling the shots. In fact rather the opposite, peer review and scrutiny works.January 26, 2021 at 21:45 #66219Clark
Google owns YouTube.
As best I remember, the Lancet published a paper by a drug company that was marketing a treatment for covid, purporting to show that a competing compound, hydroxychloroquine, is ineffective and dangerous. Many scientists wrote in complaining of lack of transparency in the sources of the data in that paper. Authors of the paper started to remove their names from it, and the Lancet retracted it, complaining of corporate interference with science.
That’s why scientific claims should be published in scientific journals like the Lancet. The scientific process of publication, scientific scrutiny, challenge and if necessary retraction worked; a false claim was prevented from proliferating, and the company’s reputation was tarnished.January 26, 2021 at 21:57 #66220Clark
Scientists are actually busy doing science (and the bureaucracy that surrounds it), especially medical / epidemiological etc. scientists at this time of crisis – contrary to the impression given by conspiracy theory, they don’t just sit around for decades waiting for Mr Big to walk in one day and demand “create me a false pandemic”.
It would be entirely impractical for the scientific community to examine every claim on every blog and YouTube channel. The places that attract a lot of appropriate critical expert scrutiny are the appropriate scientific journals for each field, so those are the places to publish serious scientific claims.January 26, 2021 at 22:34 #66229Dave
“In fact rather the opposite, peer review and scrutiny works”.
Corrections are made, but timing is vital, when dealing with political science. The fake report, as Dr Gold made clear, halted moves to use effective therapeutics, that would have halted the virus terrorism and excuse for mass medication of experimental drugs.January 26, 2021 at 22:53 #66235glenn_uk
But Dave, it doesn’t matter what Dr. Gold points out. She “points out” her findings to people who are not equipped to understand the flaws in her analysis – like yourself, for instance.
She does not want to subject herself to questioning by people who do understand and will ask the right questions, that’s why she steers away from the proper channels for such things.
Clark has explained this to you again and again. Why are you so keen to not understand this particularly inconvenient, basic, obvious fact?January 27, 2021 at 00:08 #66244Clark
Timing? A company make complete fools of themselves by publishing in the world’s foremost medical science journal, thus drawing criticism from a host of scientific professionals, provoking disownership by major authors of the study, retraction by the journal and incandescent criticism from the editor – the scientific equivalent of a major firework display – and thereby draw worldwide attention to the generic alternative to their fancy expensive drug, resulting in a randomised, placebo-controlled trial of said generic, and you’re complaining about timing, Dave?
Do I hear the bottom of a barrel being scraped?January 27, 2021 at 00:43 #66249ET
Dave, there are so many areas where Big Pharma can be legitimately criticised. I don’t think anyone here is a fan of Big Pharma. Opaque lobbying, revolving doors between regulatory agencies and big pharma, non-disclosure of trial data, price fixing, price gouging, ghost writing, funding patient action groups to advocate for expensive but not effective drugs to be made available on NHS and many other tactics.
It’s a money making business. Boards and top management are not directly accountable. Legislation and trade agreements almost mandate that making profit for investors is their over arching duty. Those are the things that need addressing. The duty of candour within the NHS is not that long a thing. Prior to that, lawyers advised against disclosure of information that might look bad for an NHS Trust in litigation and it was their duty to do so. These are tangiable things that can be addressed.January 27, 2021 at 05:07 #66268SA
The other big pharma, a thirty billion dollar enterprise is the vitamin industry which produces completely unregulated products like vitamins and supplements of dubious benefit except in selective cases and which constantly make false claims. Yet the covid deniers criticise big pharma but not realise this other big moment spinner which they often support.January 27, 2021 at 07:00 #66271SA
The basic misunderstanding in this discussion is that what is going on is a political rather than a scientific opinion that is being discussed. Science is based on facts and their verification. Untrained individuals have a limited capacity to interpret or to challenge scientific findings. What can be questioned is the political decisions based on the science and this is a different matter altogether.
I am not saying that science is fixed or infallible as new findings can change what was previously thought to be true, but the process has to be verified and scrutinised by those competent to do so.January 27, 2021 at 08:23 #66276ET
“The fake report, as Dr Gold made clear, halted moves to use effective therapeutics”
I gave a link above Dave which listed various trials and even tabulated the results for you. The majority showed no difference in outcome using HCQ, some showed some better results and some worse. It hasn’t been proven to be effective in treating those with covid.January 27, 2021 at 09:38 #66280Dave
“Yet the covid deniers criticise big pharma but not realise this other big moment spinner which they often support”.
I’m not an advocate of supplements, as opposed healthy or even unhealthy eating, as eating provides all the nutrients you need, unless there are reasons you can’t eat, as any excess supplements will just be expelled from the body. So its another straw man, as the only supplement I’ve mentioned is Vitamin D.
I’ve mentioned this after becoming aware its vital to the immune system, but is created in the body from exposure to sunshine, which being absent in winter is the reason why many people suffer Vitamin D deficiency in winter. And this deficiency is found in identifiable at risk groups, elderly during winter due to lack of sunshine, fat people as the Vitamin D is under utilised when trapped in fat, and darker skinned people need greater exposure to sunshine to create their Vitamin D.
So not advocating a supplement lifestyle just pointing out distributing Vitamin D (or just advice) to people during the winter months (and promoting therapeutics) would have been far more proportionate and effective than destroying health and economy of the country.January 27, 2021 at 09:41 #66282SA
But why re-invent the wheel? This is already being done and did not escape the eyes of the authorities. Next.January 27, 2021 at 10:25 #66284ET
Dave, that is fair comment and a fair appraisal of Vit-D. There are some dietary sources too, oily fish and eggs. I agree that advice to take supplements is reasonable and I think that that has been the advice before 2020 for a number of years. I don’t agree that it would have been far more effective in reducing cases numbers than lockdowns. You can still go outside and get sun.
Also, other countries where the lack of winter sun isn’t an issue also had significant excess deaths.
For what it’s worth I came across a site dedicated to debunking covid myths. It’s been up since Jan 19.
“dedicated to debunking common Covid Sceptic arguments, and highlighting the track record of some of the most influential and consistently-wrong Covid Sceptics. We mostly focus on UK-based people, since most of this site’s creators are UK-based as well.”
I haven’t read through it all yet but so far it seems to be considered and well thought out.
https://www.covidfaq.co/January 28, 2021 at 08:18 #66340Dave
It started very wordy, as if to deceive with quantity over quality, and their very first ‘fact’ was doubtful, as it claimed sceptics say there is a 99.5% recovery rate, and then claiming if not suppressed the 0.5% would kill 300,000 people in UK. I thought the mortality rate was less than 0.1%
But the latest covid-related (inflated) mortality rate is 0.15% (cumulative 100,000 out of 68m). So the figure is increasing, as a cumulative figure will, but far less than 0.5%. However as we know those most at risk are the frail elderly (including those left to die from neglect), they are claiming in effect 300,000 elderly frail would have died without the lockdown.
As there was no question, or shouldn’t have been, of no care being provided, to give a figure of 300,000 frail elderly dying is made up, like the 500,000 figure provided on behalf of the drug cartels to get the ball rolling, albeit they were toying with 1m, but thought it lacked credibility!January 28, 2021 at 09:13 #66342SA
You seem to have a problem with denominators. The denominator for 100,000 deaths is not the total population of 68 million UK residents but the UK, but the 3 millions who are positive for the virus, which makes it around 2.7% IFR. And that is the reason why the number of deaths keep rising and that and the proportion of positives is also rising more rapidly than the increase in UK population. In Fact according to your false positive PCR hypothesis, as the number of SARS-cov2 positives is overinflated then the IFR must be more than 50%! Have you though that one out?
By the way thank you for this very valuable link.January 28, 2021 at 11:13 #66349ET
Covid skeptic claim: “The Infection Fatality Ratio (IFR) of COVID-19 is very low – 99.5% of people survive it. The entire world is drastically overreacting to what doesn’t kill the vast, vast majority.”
Counter claim: “Let’s assume the “99.5% survival rate” number is correct (although it’s not – see point 5 below). This translates to an Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of 0.5%. If we just didn’t suppress the virus, this would kill up to 300,000 people in a country the size of the UK”
The hypothetical case being if everyone in the country were to become infected and 0.5% died. “this would kill up to 300,000 people in a country the size of the UK”
“they are claiming in effect 300,000 elderly frail would have died without the lockdown.”
No they are absolutely not making any claims as to age of people. What they are postulating, and it is very succint, is that if everyone of the UK population was infected then with an IFR of 0.5 % some 300,000 people OF ALL AGES would die.
They do however point out very clearly that the IFR varies with age later in point 3.January 28, 2021 at 12:29 #66356Clark
[ Mod: ‘Onlooker’ posted via TOR, which is being abused by sockpuppets to evade moderation, so that reply has been suspended. ]
Onlooker, there is no doubt that covid-19 is a very serious illness; that it has killed many tens of thousands of people in the UK and millions worldwide; that several times that figure suffer long term effects; that it spreads very fast due to being new and the population therefore having no acquired immunity to it; that social restrictions greatly slow its spread; that without social restrictions it would overwhelm any nation’s health service by a factor of around ten ie. treatment would be unavailable for about 90% of sufferers.
So why are you manufacturing doubt?
– “Doubt is our product,” Michaels quotes a cigarette executive as saying, “since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.” Michaels argues that, for decades, cigarette manufacturers knew that their product was hazardous to people’s health, but hired mercenary scientists who “manufactured uncertainty by questioning every study, dissecting every method, and disputing every conclusion”. In doing so the tobacco industry waged a campaign that “successfully delayed regulation and victim compensation for decades”.January 28, 2021 at 12:31 #66359SA
These are the figures for ONS for England and wales from 2010 to 2020. You can see that both the number of deaths and the crude mortality rate has been stable from 2010 till 2019 with a jump of over 100,000 in 2020 and an increase in crude mortality by 123 which is about 14%.
Population x 1,000
Crude mortality per 100,000
So in answer to your other questions, yes we do know how many people have tested positive for SARS cov-2, the statistics are widely available, we do know how many are in hospital with Covid-19, something like 37 thousands and the figures are published daily in the Guardian.
It is one thing to say that you or they don’t know, and another to say that nobody knows. The statistics are there but if you start with false assumptions such as that the PCR has a high false positive rate, then the other concepts will be difficult to understand.January 28, 2021 at 12:33 #66361SA
The above was directed at Onlooker but I see the post has been deleted.January 28, 2021 at 12:52 #66364pretzelattack
i’m glad to see so much pushback against the covid 19 deniers on this blog. they’ve almost taken over the comment threads on one blog i read regularly, despite yeoman efforts by the host. it’s exhausting.January 28, 2021 at 14:09 #66371Dave
“I’m glad to see so much pushback against the covid 19 deniers on this blog”. I think its Covid-20 now!January 28, 2021 at 14:17 #66373Nino
Surely Covid-21 with all the new strains aroundJanuary 28, 2021 at 14:32 #66374Dave
You say “it spreads very fast due to being new and the population therefore having no acquired immunity to it”!
If it spreads fast then probably by now the whole population has had it and reached herd immunity, albeit exposure to SARS 1 will provide some immunity to SARS 2 and there already exist effective therapeutics, but suppressed to push experimental vaccines.
“In doing so the tobacco industry waged a campaign that “successfully delayed regulation and victim compensation for decades”.
And yet you support mass medication of millions of people with the drug cartels indemnified against harm. Odd!January 28, 2021 at 14:42 #66375Dave
I agree the mortality rate is far higher for the elderly, as you have previously shown. These figures should trigger a proportionate health response. But if government policy is to vaccinate everyone, that means all those millions not at risk, then its reasonable to show the mortality rate for the entire population as that must be the guide for medicating everyone. In other words its not proportionate, in fact its a waste of resources, to vaccinate the vast majority of healthy people to, in theory, protect a vulnerable minority, when focused health care and therapeutics will be more effective.January 28, 2021 at 15:12 #66378SA
“…..in fact its a waste of resources, to vaccinate the vast majority of healthy people to, in theory, protect a vulnerable minority, when focused health care and therapeutics will be more effective.”
How many times do I have to repeat this so that you can understand:
- You are vaccinating the majority in order to achieve herd immunity and to make the virus less prevalent for everybody.
- There is still a considerable mortality for anyone above 60 years and those with other illnesses but who are otherwise well.
For every person who dies of covid there are about 20 others who have very severe debilitating disease and who some of whom require support in intensive care. These are of any age above 20 years.
- Many who recover have long term health problems related to this serious infection.
- There are no specific therapeutics for covid-19. Many agents have been tried including two antiviral agents, hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin and steroids. Steroids help some people but is not a magic cure. Nor are any of the other drugs known to have any major effect on the course of the disease.
So please Dave I have answered your questions. I don’t think I will answer them again and if you persist in saying the same things then it really doesn’t mean that they are true. You obviously have not seen anyone close who has Covid-19 and until you see it first hand, you will continue to deny its seriousness.January 28, 2021 at 15:21 #66383SA
This Covid-20 and Covid-21 is simply nonsense, it is the same virus but with some different genetic makeup. It is as if you recategorize the human species according to differences such as the colour of their eyes or other features. They are all the same ‘species’.January 28, 2021 at 15:33 #66384Nino
Dave actually it depends how you frame a group most at risk.
The significance or the R number rises with the number of infected in the community. That is to say an R number of 2 in a population where 10,000 are infected is less of a threat to the whole population than if 10 million are infected.
The old and vulnerable are more at risk of serious illness and death from the disease than children and young people.
However it was realised very early on that children and young people were the greatest spreaders of the disease, numerous studies have confirmed this to be the case.
So the sensible option was to isolate the children and young until a vaccine was available and administered to that group first to control the infected population.
What the government did though was keep children and the young in school when they were restricting the adult population. Then the government went the precisely most hazardous route, they separated the kids into two groups and key workers children were permitted into schools but the other were not and restrictions were placed on them.
The key worker kids were able to mix and spread the virus, that was then taken home to the parents many of them working as health workers or nursing home staff with obvious results.
The super spreaders should have been targeted for restrictions and vaccine first rather than the vulnerable because many of those are near the end of life anyway and are in a minority.
The government failed to manage the risk to the whole population by focusing on protecting the vulnerable. Many of the vulnerable will tell you that they would rather be able to hold their loved ones and children / grandchildren than be protected by oppressive measures which severely reduces the quality of their remaining life, those measures are also shortening the remaining time for many.
The government’s strategies and policies have encouraged the virus, quite benign to many, to rip through the entire population eventually infecting the old and vulnerable.