Conspiracy Theories

[Brian Peacock]

—meh, it’s fine to think the worst of all scientists. Whatever their motivations and personalities their work is either good, or it isn’t.

Yup. And there's robust systems for checking and testing their work. It's how we got the devices, networks and protocols we use to anonymously call scientists corrupt shills.

[Cunt]

—meh, it’s fine to think the worst of all scientists. Whatever their motivations and personalities their work is either good, or it isn’t.

Yup. And there's robust systems for checking and testing their work. It's how we got the devices, networks and protocols we use to anonymously call scientists corrupt shills.

Who paid the largest criminal fine in human history, BP? Was it a big polluting energy company? Or a science outfit?

[Cunt]

https://www.mlive.com/news/2023/04/msu- ... acted.html

Michigan State University economist Mark Skidmore published an article in January in which he estimated that the number of deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines in the United States “may be as high as 278,000.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has identified just 9, all of them linked to the Johnson & Johnson vaccine.

Skidmore’s article, which was published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal BMC Infectious Diseases, was shared furiously by vaccine skeptics in the weeks after it published. So furiously, in fact, that Altmetric, a data science company that tracks online mentions of published research, now ranks the article 846th out of the 23.5 million piece of published research it tracks.

But, on Tuesday, BMC Infectious Diseases retracted it.

Looks like a conspiracy theory.
https://kirschsubstack.com/p/msu-profes ... dium=email

Executive summary
Mark Skidmore wrote a paper that showed that 217,000 Americans were killed in 2021 by the COVID vaccine.

The journal retracted the article and Mark’s university commenced a 7-month investigation into unethical behavior by Professor Skidmore.

Today, I’m pleased to announce that Professor Skidmore has been exonerated on all charges and his paper, with some helpful additions suggested by Dr. Susan Oliver (and her dog, Cindy), has now been published in another peer-reviewed journal.

...or is THIS the conspiracy theory?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Old news, except for the fact that Skidmore (known for his anti-vaccination screeds) managed to get it published in another journal. It was described succinctly as 'fractal pseudoscience.' I'm sure the dog's contributions were very important though.

For anybody who hasn't heard about Skidmore's paper, The Chronicle of Higher Education has a fairly comprehensive article about it, though there are plenty of other sources (including the doctor quoted above). Not that ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine enthusiasts will bother with any of that.

[pErvinalia]

The Chronicle Of Higher Education? Communists.

[Cunt]

Old news, except for the fact that Skidmore (known for his anti-vaccination screeds) managed to get it published in another journal. It was described succinctly as 'fractal pseudoscience.' I'm sure the dog's contributions were very important though.

For anybody who hasn't heard about Skidmore's paper, The Chronicle of Higher Education has a fairly comprehensive article about it, though there are plenty of other sources (including the doctor quoted above). Not that ivermectin/hydroxychloroquine enthusiasts will bother with any of that.

Did you also fall for the 'ivermectin the horse dewormer' psyop lol?

I liked that conspiracy theory very well. Billions of doses issued safely to humans, but DON'T take it people - it's for horses!

[Brian Peacock]

[pErvinalia]

[Tero]

"Michigan State University economist Mark Skidmore published an article in January in which he estimated that the number of deaths caused by COVID-19 vaccines in the United States “may be as high as 278,000.”

Now, how many is 278 000?
3.4 million people die each year.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm

[L'Emmerdeur]

Did you also fall for the 'ivermectin the horse dewormer' psyop lol?

I liked that conspiracy theory very well. Billions of doses issued safely to humans, but DON'T take it people - it's for horses!

OK you don't want to address the fact that the paper you posted about is complete shit, and would rather harp on about one of your favorite topics from the past. That's understandable.

For this discussion, take it as read that literally billions of doses of ivermectin have been given to humans safely. Those would be doses administered under a doctor's care for treatment of various parasitic ailments. Calibrated by the doctors to safely achieve the desired result. That would be what you're talking about.

On the other hand there would be the tens of thousands of gullible victims of paranoiac propaganda and misinformation who got their hands on ivermectin from animal care shops and other sources and then self-dosed out of the mistaken idea that it would help them in some way against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Many of them had no idea of how to calibrate the dose so that it wouldn't harm them. This resulted in a spike of ivermectin poisoning in the US by at least 200% in 2021 over 2020. There would have been similar results in other parts of the world.

I didn't find any numbers on how many people suffered severe COVID infections (some of whom would have died) because they took ivermectin rather than getting vaccinated, but I doubt it was negligible.

Taking these two repercussions into account, the ivermectin idiocy was not as harmless as you'd like people to think.

[Cunt]

Did you also fall for the 'ivermectin the horse dewormer' psyop lol?

I liked that conspiracy theory very well. Billions of doses issued safely to humans, but DON'T take it people - it's for horses!

OK you don't want to address the fact that the paper you posted about is complete shit,

Summary
So it’s now back in the scientific peer-reviewed literature that over 250,000 people were killed by the COVID vaccine in 2021 alone.

Other independent surveys (like Rasmussen and the outside surveys I’ve done) all are consistent with those numbers that the vaccine killed a comparable number to the virus. So that’s very validating of Mark’s numbers.

So how are they going to explain the results which are verifiable and which can be replicated?

Answer: They will not. They will ignore it. Because they cannot explain it. Gaslighting people on this is too hard. That’s why they had to get the paper unethically retracted when it came out. Now that it’s out, they will ignore it. No fact checks, nothing. Silence.

For this discussion, take it as read that literally billions of doses of ivermectin have been given to humans safely. Those would be doses administered under a doctor's care for treatment of various parasitic ailments. Calibrated by the doctors to safely achieve the desired result. That would be what you're talking about.

On the other hand there would be the tens of thousands of gullible victims of paranoiac propaganda and misinformation who got their hands on ivermectin from animal care shops and other sources and then self-dosed out of the mistaken idea that it would help them in some way against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Many of them had no idea of how to calibrate the dose so that it wouldn't harm them. This resulted in a spike of ivermectin poisoning in the US by at least 200% in 2021 over 2020. There would have been similar results in other parts of the world.

I didn't find any numbers on how many people suffered severe COVID infections (some of whom would have died) because they took ivermectin rather than getting vaccinated, but I doubt it was negligible.

Taking these two repercussions into account, the ivermectin idiocy was not as harmless as you'd like people to think.

I noticed you said 200%. That sound terrible. What is that number in deaths?

I couldn't see, because the pie chart was so thinly sliced at that end.

Also, I would have to compare this to the harm caused by removing autonomy from doctors and pharmacists, for that drug. Who would be qualified to describe that harm? Would it be the drug companies, government, or doctors and pharmacists?

Do you think broad policy should dictate treatment? Or the patient and doctor?

[Brian Peacock]

The idea of harm, or lack thereof, is a red-herring when considering how well a particular treatment or drug works under carefully controlled clinical conditions. An administered drug or treatment might not be harmful in itself, but the issue is whether it can be shown to be efficacious as a treatment for a particular disease or medical condition. Ivermectin has been clinically shown to not be an efficacious treatment or prophylaxis for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The idea of harm, or lack thereof, is a red-herring when considering how well a particular treatment or drug works under carefully controlled clinical conditions. An administered drug or treatment might not be harmful in itself, but the issue is whether it can be shown to be efficacious as a treatment for a particular disease or medical condition. Ivermectin has been clinically shown to not be an efficacious treatment or prophylaxis for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

I take your point. I was responding to a post that implied a claim that ivermectin is 'safe' in the context of the pandemic. The harm resulting from people ingesting an ineffective 'preventative/treatment' and consequently suffering the full effects of the disease should be taken into account I think. Especially once effective vaccines became available. Spurious claims about ivermectin plus anti-vaccine misinformation produces a result: A number of people think that there is an effective alternative and decide not to get vaccinated. When they contract COVID and perhaps die, they, their families, and society in general suffer harm.

That's a direct result of the futile use of a medication that did nothing to prevent or treat the illness. Ivermectin being used as an antiviral in the context of the pandemic is by no means 'safe.'

[Brian Peacock]

The idea of harm, or lack thereof, is a red-herring when considering how well a particular treatment or drug works under carefully controlled clinical conditions. An administered drug or treatment might not be harmful in itself, but the issue is whether it can be shown to be efficacious as a treatment for a particular disease or medical condition. Ivermectin has been clinically shown to not be an efficacious treatment or prophylaxis for the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

I take your point. I was responding to a post that implied a claim that ivermectin is 'safe' in the context of the pandemic. The harm resulting from people ingesting an ineffective 'preventative/treatment' and consequently suffering the full effects of the disease should be taken into account I think. Especially once effective vaccines became available. Spurious claims about ivermectin plus anti-vaccine misinformation produces a result: A number of people think that there is an effective alternative and decide not to get vaccinated. When they contract COVID and perhaps die, they, their families, and society in general suffer harm.

That's a direct result of the futile use of a medication that did nothing to prevent or treat the illness. Ivermectin being used as an antiviral in the context of the pandemic is by no means 'safe.'

Indeed. I was responding to Cunt's "I would have to compare [the possible harmful effects of Ivermectin] to the harm caused by removing autonomy from doctors and pharmacists, for that drug. Who would be qualified to describe that harm?" That's le Clupeidae Rouge.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Summary
So it’s now back in the scientific peer-reviewed literature that over 250,000 people were killed by the COVID vaccine in 2021 alone.

Other independent surveys (like Rasmussen and the outside surveys I’ve done) all are consistent with those numbers that the vaccine killed a comparable number to the virus. So that’s very validating of Mark’s numbers.

So how are they going to explain the results which are verifiable and which can be replicated?

Answer: They will not. They will ignore it. Because they cannot explain it. Gaslighting people on this is too hard. That’s why they had to get the paper unethically retracted when it came out. Now that it’s out, they will ignore it. No fact checks, nothing. Silence.

You didn't follow up very well. The 'independent surveys' replicate Skidmore all right. They're shit as well. Phone polls asking people's opinions, and in the Kirsch poll, only 500 responses in total.

Rasmussen:

Nearly as many Americans believe someone close to them died from side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine as died from the disease itself.

That doesn't show actual deaths, and is not a valid measurement in any sense.

Kirsch:

Our latest polls show twice as many people died from the vaccine as from COVID.

Except that's not what they show. Instead they show that of the 500 people who answered the poll, 36 claimed that they believed somebody in their household had died as a result of the vaccine. Not a measurement of actual deaths, but a measurement of the opinion of poll respondents in a tiny poll.

Notice that the Rasmussen poll doesn't agree with Kirsch's poll, and neither of them agree with the Skidmore poll. Kirsch just handwaves at some spurious claims and declares victory.

For this discussion, take it as read that literally billions of doses of ivermectin have been given to humans safely. Those would be doses administered under a doctor's care for treatment of various parasitic ailments. Calibrated by the doctors to safely achieve the desired result. That would be what you're talking about.

On the other hand there would be the tens of thousands of gullible victims of paranoiac propaganda and misinformation who got their hands on ivermectin from animal care shops and other sources and then self-dosed out of the mistaken idea that it would help them in some way against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Many of them had no idea of how to calibrate the dose so that it wouldn't harm them. This resulted in a spike of ivermectin poisoning in the US by at least 200% in 2021 over 2020. There would have been similar results in other parts of the world.

I didn't find any numbers on how many people suffered severe COVID infections (some of whom would have died) because they took ivermectin rather than getting vaccinated, but I doubt it was negligible.

Taking these two repercussions into account, the ivermectin idiocy was not as harmless as you'd like people to think.

I noticed you said 200%. That sound terrible. What is that number in deaths?

I couldn't see, because the pie chart was so thinly sliced at that end.

Also, I would have to compare this to the harm caused by removing autonomy from doctors and pharmacists, for that drug. Who would be qualified to describe that harm? Would it be the drug companies, government, or doctors and pharmacists?

Do you think broad policy should dictate treatment? Or the patient and doctor?

It isn't a measurement of deaths, but of reported poisoning cases. The report clearly gives that number: 1440.

If a drug has been shown to be completely ineffective in treating a deadly disease then it should not be used to treat the disease because that will result in needless suffering and death. What sort of harm do you imagine that such a policy will produce?

You don't want to talk about those who suffered and/or died because instead of taking a proven effective vaccine they dosed themselves with ivermectin. But then you're touting ridiculous nonsense and it's easier to do that when you don't acknowledge the harm caused by that nonsense.