Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:48 pm

The pandemic lies, according to Piers Corbyn (Jeremy's more courageous brother)

PIERS Corbyn is a well-known committed campaigner in the fight to stop the New Normal / New World Order / World Economic Forum being imposed on us all. He’s also a physicist, astro-physicist, long-range weather forecaster and former councillor. ...

DM: Beyond Starmer, the wider Left hasn’t offered any opposition. It seems to me they’ve been co-opted. You see this in the United States where ‘Leftism’ became the ideology of the professional managerial class. It evacuated the worker dimension, and shifted to policing cultural issues.

PC: Hate speech and identity politics have destroyed the Left, and I think it’s deliberate. Because class analysis is now completely absent, which is why American workers were supporting Trump. When that began to happen I was quite bemused. But it makes sense because the Democratic Party is now just serving Wall Street interests . . .

DM: And Silicon Valley interests, and military industrial interests . . .

PC: And anything goes. The idea that a Leftist party can support the indiscriminate bombing and destruction of a country like Libya is just unbelievable, but that’s what they did.

DM: Some see the current political climate as an expression of the triumph of Leftism, or some form of Marxism. On the other hand, the Marxism now taught in universities or advanced in Leftist media appears to have been modified to support Democratic Party interests, and the people still committed to a more classical Marxist analysis are sidelined and repressed. This occurs from the Left, which is concerned with disciplining activism and channeling it into directions that create divisions and antagonism.

PC: The question must be, with respect to the Left, what percentage of activity is actually instigated by infiltrators and police agents.

DM: There almost seems to be a natural law of infiltration where eventually you reach a point where the Chief of Police is also the Head of the Anarchists . . .

PC: Yes!

DM: I want to ask you about your own background. Many people know you as Jeremy Corbyn’s brother, but your training is in meteorology, and you’ve been an activist for a long time.

PC: Yes, I’m a physicist, a theoretical physicist and astrophysicist, and I run a long range weather forecasting operation which sells forecasts to farmers, commodity traders, the energy industry and others, and has been quite successful. As for my brother, I’m older than him for a start. And I was better known around the world than he was until he started to attempt to be the leader of the Labour Party. He was always a member of the Labour Party, whereas I was in groups more involved in direct action. He was always more involved with the trade unions. But we worked together in the miners’ strike for example, where there was a lot of direct action, and he was coming from a trade union point of view. But at the start of his leadership campaign I said to him, you should make it clear that the other candidates are ‘Tory light’ and you’re different. And he said, that’s right, and that’s what he did, and that succeeded. And it’s true, because he does have a different perspective from the others. But he failed at the last hurdle because he was forced into a complete muddle over Brexit. And that was really the end of his great story at the upper levels of the Labour Party, although he still has a very important following.

DM: Your brother’s silence in the last eighteen months has been quite noticeable.

PC: No, he’s acquiesced basically and made minor comments . . . A lot of people in the anti-lockdown movement were, and some of them still are, supporters of Jeremy, and they come up to me in demonstrations and say, Piers, we supported your brother, where is he? Does he believe in all this? And I tell them, well, he’s a prisoner of the trade unions. And you’ve seen what’s happened. The authorities have been very clever. They thought about it a long time ahead, how to control the Labour movement, and because the Labour movement in Britain, all Labour movements, but especially Britain, is what I would call ‘economistic’. They don’t think very politically, they just think, where’s the money coming from? Anybody’s who has done any analysis, and Jeremy should have done this too, should have realised that this is the slow death of British industry, and those jobs will be destroyed. But they are just not facing up to it.

DM: The future of public services in Britain looks bleak. It seems that the government’s plan is to destroy them, and then package the market to corporations like Microsoft. And this is how the post-automation underclass is going to be managed in the future, with digital communications, UBI [universal basic income] and pharmaceutical interventions to ensure compliance.

PC: Yes, total privatisation. You can see that people are going to be asked to defend the NHS by people like Starmer and my brother, and they are going to reply, ‘What are we defending? The NHS has been failing to help people with cancer, injecting people with a lethal vaccine, there’s been a suppression of treatment, what are we defending?’

DM: From a Machiavellian perspective I suppose you have to hand it to them, because the government has in effect destroyed the NHS while repeating all the time we have to save it. Meanwhile they are making it as difficult as possible to have a good experience in schools. Here at least there is a possible path which might actually be quite positive, from the point of view of a more decentralised education system. But only for some.

PC: A lot of parents are actually taking their children out. And that’s interesting because if you get a high percentage of parents who take their children out and home-school I wonder where that will go, because you have private enterprises that will pop up and say we can look after your kids and have a private independent schools then the whole thing will become privatised.

DM: What do you think is politically the path forward for people who want to resist what’s happening?

PC: The main way to stop this is not begging the government; we do actually have to break their impositions and if we don’t break them we’re going to lose. People have to go to work when they’re not supposed to, they’ve got to rip down all the signs. If people defy in sufficient numbers the whole agenda of the other side becomes irrelevant because people will be working, and will be having an economy, and so forth. What happens then, I don’t know. Formally the main decisions are made in Parliament even if Johnson and others are being told what to do. So we’re building a party in order to compete on the level but of course we’re tiny compared to existing forces. Politically the key issues now are accountability and democracy versus globalist diktats, and the Left and Right issues are really a diversion. The way forward has to be massive grassroots resistance, physical, legal resistance, and stopping the implementation of the New World Order. This also requires political organisation which is why we set up Let London Live. The primary thing is that we have to be a movement and build a movement and that’s what we’re doing.

DM: The vaccine passports is now clearly the aim that they’re trying to pursue.

PC: Yes, the vaccine seems to be at the centre of their strategy. Now what is the vaccine programme about? It’s not about public health. It is about control, mental control, ideological control, and they do want to kill people, I have no doubt about that. I think a lot of people will die. The powers that be are desperate now to rush out more vaccines, and to vaccinate children, before people realise what’s going on.

DM: Already the casualties from the new experimental vaccines are unprecedented compared with other vaccination programmes.

PC: Yes, in America more people have died from this vaccine than have died from all of the other vaccines in the USA in the past.

DM: Probably one should be generous to their position intellectually, as it’s unusual for people to self-consciously pursue evil. People want to believe that what they’re doing is necessary. What they seem to believe in is the rational, scientific management of global populations. You see this already with the formation of the Fabian Society in the nineteenth century, which is still very active, and later with people like Julian Huxley, H G Wells and others. A lot of this seems to have been in the works for a long time and suddenly switched on. Evidently not everybody knows all the steps, but only some.

PC: That’s right.

DM: It is very difficult to speak to many of our contemporaries about this matter. It seems like there is a kind of mental block . . .

PC: Exactly, it’s difficult to believe they want to kill us. But I’ve come to the conclusion that actually they do, they really are trying to kill a lot of the population. We need to have a principled united front against all these measures. And the vaccines have to be stopped altogether.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:35 pm

The argument below strikes me as a ridiculous and unbelievable overstatement, but after reviewing the data for myself, I cannot find the flaw in the the argument. Can any of you?

https://www.afinalwarning.com/532469.html

DEPOPULATION ALERT: Shocking new study reveals covid vaccine TERMINATES 4 out of 5 pregnancies via "spontaneous abortions"

A shocking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that when pregnant women are given covid vaccinations during their first or second trimesters, they suffer an 82% spontaneous abortion rate, killing 4 out of 5 unborn babies. This stunning finding, explained below, is self-evident from the data published in a new study entitled, "Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons."

Just as disturbing as the data is the fact that the study authors apparently sought to deliberately obfuscate the truth about vaccines causing spontaneous abortions by obfuscating numbers in their own calculations. Originally brought to our attention by a Life Site News article, we checked with our own science contacts to review the data and double check all the math. In doing so, we were able to confirm two things:

*Yes, the study shows an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions in expectant mothers given covid vaccines during their first or second trimesters.

*Yes, the study authors either deliberately sought to hide this fact with dishonest obfuscation (explained below) or they are incompetent and made a glaring error that brings into question their credibility.

In other words, this study was almost certainly a cover-up to try to claim vaccinating pregnant women is perfectly safe. But the study data actually show quite the oppose.

Here's how:

700 of the 827 women were vaccinated in the third trimester

Table 4 from the study, shown below, reveals that a total of 827 pregnant women were studied. Out of the 827 women, 700 of them received their first vaccine in their third trimester of pregnancy. This means 127 women (which is 827 - 700) received a vaccine during their first or second trimesters. (You have to read the fine print below the table to see this disclosure.) Out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark.

Image

These are indicated as "spontaneous abortions" in the table. In simple math, 104 spontaneous abortions (during the first 20 weeks) out of 127 women who received vaccines in their first or second trimesters calculates to an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions among these pregnant women who were vaccinated. It is important to note that deaths of unborn babies during the third trimester are known as "stillbirths" and not spontaneous abortions. Thus, the spontaneous abortions could not have possibly occurred in women vaccinated during their third trimester, by definition. Thus, the study authors dishonestly used the wrong denominator of 827 in their "spontaneous abortions" calculation, when they should have used a denominator of 127, which is the number of women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters.

Put another way, it is impossible for a woman who was vaccinated for the first time during her third trimester to have a "spontaneous abortion" in the first 20 weeks, since they weren't vaccinated during the first 20 weeks (and pregnant women aren't time travelers). Thus, those women shouldn't be included in the denominator used to calculate the spontaneous abortion rate.
The authors of this study should receive an award in the category of, "How to lie with statistics," because they apparently tried to pull a sleight-of-hand trick to make it appear that vaccines are safe for pregnant women. In reality, they seem to be killing more than 4 out of 5 unborn babies in the first 20 weeks of gestation, at least in this data set. (It's a small set of 127 pregnant women, so we'd like to see a larger review of many thousands of pregnancies in order to get a more clear picture.)
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Grizzly » Fri Jul 02, 2021 5:50 pm

https://coronanews123.wordpress.com/2021/07/01/breaking-how-the-vaxxed-have-been-played-and-what-they-can-do-about-it/
How the Vaxxed Have Been Played, and What They Can do About it

At least it's a start...
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby DrEvil » Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:08 pm

Miscarriages happen early in pregnancy, so you would expect them to be clustered in the first and second trimester. Out of all the pregnant women 12.6% miscarried, which is about the same as before the pandemic.

On the other hand:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamape ... le/2779182

Conclusions and Relevance In this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with consistent and substantial increases in severe maternal morbidity and mortality and neonatal complications when pregnant women with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were compared. The findings should alert pregnant individuals and clinicians to implement strictly all the recommended COVID-19 preventive measures.


As a side note: a website that considers Breitbart and Natural News as valid sources might not be the best source of information.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Harvey » Fri Jul 02, 2021 6:23 pm

Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 02, 2021 8:09 pm wrote:https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1410986764890689538.html


I have to say, just about every alarm I have in me has been set off by Mr "We Will Be Free" above ^. Did you watch his video? Did you notice the hyperbole? Did you scan the use of English in that 'legal' letter? Did you notice his emphasis on culpability?

In the UK there are two things happening above everything else. Those responsible are evading responsibility, not least by fomenting new wars and increasing repression, they're simultaneously privatising large blocks of the NHS. Mr Free seems genuinely anxious to set the stage for parasitisation of an 'unpopular' NHS. The biggest stumbling block to having an unpopular NHS is how to make cost effective high-quality health care seem unpopular to anyone who's actually experienced it. Mmm, how to do that...

We pay for the NHS with National Health Insurance, it costs literally the equivalent of a few dollars a month from everyone and is available to everyone at the point of need. When not being eaten alive by predators, it works amazingly well. So perhaps you'd have to degrade the NHS with policy decisions and cutbacks then target social influencers, the people from whom others tend to derive their opinions. You'd somehow need to make NHS workers seem directly responsible for global policy decisions and while all this is going on, a new national emergency of some kind would definitely help to focus attention on 'streamlining' the NHS.

But how could they make NHS staff seem more responsible than the policy makers, the legislators, the think tanks or Big Pharma? Maybe having their line managers request that doctors and nurses dance for boobtube music videos in an empty hospital, while your undiagnosed tumour becomes inoperable. And we might as well blame NHS staff for all the repressive laws and the 14 month long global media propaganda campaign. Perhaps it would also be useful to argue that NHS workers decided to inject you with a dangerous chemical cocktail, after all, they put the needle in your arm, right? Nuremburg in reverse. Yeah, that'll work.

Best part is, Mr Free is more or less telling the truth. He's only a narrative hair away from what will soon be a majority on the right or on left in the UK. But if they kill our NHS, as they're also doing in Australia and New Zealand, do our American friends really think it will be easier to build their own (once the entire anglosphere is a private market) or considerably more difficult?


Image
And while we spoke of many things, fools and kings
This he said to me
"The greatest thing
You'll ever learn
Is just to love
And be loved
In return"


Eden Ahbez
User avatar
Harvey
 
Posts: 4200
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 4:49 am
Blog: View Blog (20)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Fri Jul 02, 2021 7:01 pm

.
I haven't looked into that twitter handle yet; should have added that as a disclaimer before sharing it, though to your point, most -- if not all -- the key points raised in the letter merit attention/action.

I also noticed some of the 'casual' language used in the letter (ex: "cat out of the bag"; "elephant in the room", etc.). Each attorney/solicitor has their own unique style -- i've read many complaints, declarations and affidavits over the years -- but it raised an eyebrow, regardless.

I have not watched his video or otherwise followed his content, but will aim to do so -- though maybe I should avoid it altogether given your response!

Not familiar with the underlying political maneuverings/tactics in play regarding the NHS, but poisoned wells/limited hangouts/misdirections are expected to be in abundance for operations of this (global) scale.

On my 'to do' list for digging further.
User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Fri Jul 02, 2021 9:44 pm

DrEvil » 02 Jul 2021 22:08 wrote:Miscarriages happen early in pregnancy, so you would expect them to be clustered in the first and second trimester. Out of all the pregnant women 12.6% miscarried, which is about the same as before the pandemic.

On the other hand:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamape ... le/2779182

Conclusions and Relevance In this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with consistent and substantial increases in severe maternal morbidity and mortality and neonatal complications when pregnant women with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were compared. The findings should alert pregnant individuals and clinicians to implement strictly all the recommended COVID-19 preventive measures.


As a side note: a website that considers Breitbart and Natural News as valid sources might not be the best source of information.


LOL. You completely and conveniently skipped over the fundamental problem with the paper's statistical analysis, which is that only 127 women were among those studied who got vaccinated before the third trimester. Thus, out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark.

Based on the completely flawed 12.6% miscarried statistic the paper instead cited to assuage vaccination fears of pregnant women and their doctors, it appears to me that the New England Journal of Medicine might not be the best source of information.
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Belligerent Savant » Sat Jul 03, 2021 12:05 pm

.

Cross-post.

Belligerent Savant » Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:04 am wrote:.
https://taibbi.substack.com/p/a-case-of ... capture-on



A Case of "Intellectual Capture?" On YouTube's Demonetization of Bret Weinstein

YouTube's use of government guidelines to regulate speech raises serious questions, both about the First Amendment and regulatory capture

Just under three years ago, Infowars anchor Alex Jones was tossed off Facebook, Apple, YouTube, and Spotify, marking the unofficial launch of the “content moderation” era. The censorship envelope has since widened dramatically via a series of high-profile incidents: Facebook and Twitter suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story, Donald Trump’s social media suspension, Apple and Amazon’s kneecapping of Parler, the removal of real raw footage from the January 6th riots, and others.

This week’s decision by YouTube to demonetize podcaster Bret Weinstein belongs on that list, and has a case to be to be put at or near the top, representing a different and perhaps more unnerving speech conundrum than those other episodes.

Profiled in this space two weeks ago, Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying — both biologists — host the podcast DarkHorse, which by any measure is among the more successful independent media operations in the country. They have two YouTube channels, a main channel featuring whole episodes and livestreams, and a “clips” channel featuring excerpts from those shows.

Between the two channels, they’ve been flagged 11 times in the last month or so. Specifically, YouTube has honed in on two areas of discussion it believes promote “medical misinformation.” The first is the potential efficacy of the repurposed drug ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment. The second is the third rail of third rails, i.e. the possible shortcomings of the mRNA vaccines produced by companies like Moderna and Pfizer.

Weinstein, who was also criticized for arguing the lab-leak theory before conventional wisdom shifted on that topic, says YouTube’s decision will result in the loss of “half” of his and Heying’s income. However, he says, YouTube told him he can reapply after a month.

YouTube’s notice put it as follows: “Edit your channel and reapply for monetization… Make changes to your channel based on our feedback. Changes can include editing or deleting videos and updating video details.”
“They want me to self-censor,” he says. “Unless I stop broadcasting information that runs afoul of their CDC-approved talking points, I’ll remain demonetized.”

Weinstein’s travails with YouTube sound like something out of a Star Trek episode, in which the Enterprise crew tries and fails to communicate with a malevolent AI attacking the ship. In the last two weeks, he emailed back and forth with the firm, at one point receiving an email from someone who identified himself only as “Christopher,” indicating a desire to set up a discussion between Weinstein and various parties at YouTube.

Over the course of these communications, Weinstein asked if he could nail down the name and contact number of the person with whom he was interacting. “I said, ‘Look, I need to know who you are first, whether you’re real, what your real first and last names are, what your phone number is, and so on,” Weinstein recounts. “But on asking what ‘Christopher’s’ real name and email was, they wouldn’t even go that far.” After this demand of his, instead of giving him an actual contact, YouTube sent him a pair of less personalized demonetization notices.

As has been noted in this space multiple times, this is a common theme in nearly all of these stories, but Weinstein’s tale is at once weirder and more involved, as most people in these dilemmas never get past the form-letter response stage. YouTube has responded throughout to media queries about Weinstein’s case, suggesting they take it seriously.

YouTube’s decision with regard to Weinstein and Heying seems part of an overall butterfly effect, as numerous other figures either connected to the topic or to DarkHorse have been censured by various platforms. Weinstein guest Dr. Robert Malone, a former Salk Institute researcher often credited with helping develop mRNA vaccine technology, has been suspended from LinkedIn, and Weinstein guest Dr. Pierre Kory of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) has had his appearances removed by YouTube. Even Satoshi Ōmura, who won the Nobel Prize in 2015 for his work on ivermectin, reportedly had a video removed by YouTube this week.

There are several factors that make the DarkHorse incident different from other major Silicon Valley moderation decisions, including the fact that the content in question doesn’t involve electoral politics, foreign intervention, or incitement. The main issue is the possible blurring of lines between public and private censorship.

When I contacted YouTube about Weinstein two weeks ago, I was told, “In general, we rely on guidance from local and global health authorities (FDA, CDC, WHO, NHS, etc) in developing our COVID-19 misinformation policies.”

The question is, how active is that “guidance”? Is YouTube acting in consultation with those bodies in developing those moderation policies? As Weinstein notes, an answer in the affirmative would likely make theirs a true First Amendment problem, with an agency like the CDC not only setting public health policy but also effectively setting guidelines for private discussion about those policies. “If it is in consultation with the government,” he says, “it’s an entirely different issue.”

Asked specifically after Weinstein’s demonetization if the “guidance” included consultation with authorities, YouTube essentially said yes, pointing to previous announcements that they consult other authorities, and adding, “When we develop our policies we consult outside experts and YouTube creators. In the case of our COVID-19 misinformation policies, it would be guidance from local and global health authorities.”

Weinstein and Heying might be the most prominent non-conservative media operation to fall this far afoul of a platform like YouTube. Unlike the case of, say, Alex Jones, the moves against the show’s content have not been roundly cheered. In fact, they’ve inspired blowback from across the media spectrum, with everyone from Bill Maher to Joe Rogan to Tucker Carlson taking notice.

“They threw Bret Weinstein off YouTube, or almost,” Maher said on Real Time last week. “YouTube should not be telling me what I can see about ivermectin. Ivermectin isn’t a registered Republican. It’s a drug!”



From YouTube’s perspective, the argument for “medical misinformation” in the DarkHorse videos probably comes down to a few themes in Weinstein’s shows. Take, for example, an exchange between Weinstein and Malone in a video about the mRNA vaccines produced by companies like Moderna and Pfizer:

Weinstein: The other problem is that what these vaccines do is they encode spike protein… but the spike protein itself we now know is very dangerous, it’s cytotoxic, is that a fair description?

Malone: More than fair, and I alerted the FDA about this risk months and months and months ago.

In another moment, entrepreneur and funder of fluvoxamine studies Steve Kirsch mentioned that his carpet cleaner had a heart attack minutes after taking the Pfizer vaccine, and cited Canadian viral immunologist Byram Bridle in saying that that the COVID-19 vaccine doesn’t stay localized at point of injection, but “goes throughout your entire body, it goes to your brain to your heart.”

Politifact rated the claim that spike protein is cytotoxic “false,” citing the CDC to describe the spike protein as “harmless.” As to the idea that the protein does damage to other parts of the body, including the heart, they quoted an FDA spokesperson who said there’s no evidence the spike protein “lingers at any toxic level in the body.”

Would many doctors argue that the 226 identified cases of myocarditis so far is tiny in the context of 130 million vaccine doses administered, and overall the danger of myocarditis associated with vaccine is far lower than the dangers of myocarditis in Covid-19 patients?

Absolutely. It’s also true that the CDC itself had a meeting on June 18th to discuss cases of heart inflammation reported among people who’d received the vaccine. The CDC, in other words, is simultaneously telling news outlets like Politifact that spike protein is “harmless,” and also having ad-hoc meetings to discuss the possibility, however remote from their point of view, that it is not harmless. Are only CDC officials allowed to discuss these matters?

The larger problem with YouTube’s action is that it relies upon those government guidelines, which in turn are significantly dependent upon information provided to them by pharmaceutical companies, which have long track records of being less than forthright with the public.

In the last decade, for instance, the U.S. government spent over $1.5 billion to stockpile Tamiflu, a drug produced by the Swiss pharma firm Roche. It later came out — thanks to the efforts of a Japanese pediatrician who left a comment on an online forum — that Roche had withheld crucial testing information from British and American buyers, leading to a massive fraud suit. Similar controversies involving the arthritis drug Vioxx and the diabetes drug Avandia were prompted by investigations by independent doctors and academics.

As with financial services, military contracting, environmental protection, and other fields, the phenomenon of regulatory capture is demonstrably real in the pharmaceutical world. This makes basing any moderation policy on official guidelines problematic. If the proper vaccine policy is X, but the actual policy ends up being X plus unknown commercial consideration Y, a policy like YouTube’s more or less automatically preempts discussion of Y.

Some of Weinstein’s broadcasts involve exactly such questions about whether or not it’s necessary to give Covid-19 vaccines to children, to pregnant women, and to people who’ve already had Covid-19, and whether or not the official stance on those matters is colored by profit considerations. Other issues, like whether or not boosters are going to be necessary, need a hard look in light of the commercial incentives.

These are legitimate discussions, as the WHOs own behavior shows. On April 8th, the WHO website said flatly: “Children should not be vaccinated for the moment.” A month and a half later, the WHO issued a new guidance, saying the Pfizer vaccine was “suitable for use by people aged 12 years and above.”

The WHO was clear that its early recommendation was based on a lack of data, and on uncertainty about whether or not children with a low likelihood of infection should be a “priority,” and not on any definite conviction that the vaccine was unsafe. And, again, a Politifact check on the notion that the WHO “reversed its stance” on children rated the claim false, saying that the WHO merely “updated” its guidance on children. Still, the whole drama over the WHO recommendation suggested it should at least be an allowable topic of discussion.

Certainly there are critics of Weinstein’s who blanch at the use of sci-fi terms like “red pill” (derived from worldview-altering truth pill in The Matrix), employing language like “very dangerous” to describe the mRNA vaccines, and descriptions of ivermectin as a drug that would “almost certainly make you better.”

Even to those critics, however, the larger issue Weinstein’s case highlights should be clear. If platforms like YouTube are basing speech regulation policies on government guidelines, and government agencies demonstrably can be captured by industry, the potential exists for a new brand of capture — intellectual capture, where corporate money can theoretically buy not just regulatory relief but the broader preemption of public criticism. It’s vaccines today, and that issue is important enough, but what if in the future the questions involve the performance of an expensive weapons program, or a finance company contracted to administer bailout funds, or health risks posed by a private polluter?

Weinstein believes capture plays a role in his case at some level. “It’s the only thing that makes sense,” he says. He hopes the pressure from the public and from the media will push platforms like YouTube to reveal exactly how, and with whom, they settle upon their speech guidelines. “There’s something industrial strength about the censorship,” he says, adding. “There needs to be a public campaign to reject it.”

User avatar
Belligerent Savant
 
Posts: 5573
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Location: North Atlantic.
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby DrEvil » Sat Jul 03, 2021 2:24 pm

stickdog99 » Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:44 am wrote:
DrEvil » 02 Jul 2021 22:08 wrote:Miscarriages happen early in pregnancy, so you would expect them to be clustered in the first and second trimester. Out of all the pregnant women 12.6% miscarried, which is about the same as before the pandemic.

On the other hand:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamape ... le/2779182

Conclusions and Relevance In this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with consistent and substantial increases in severe maternal morbidity and mortality and neonatal complications when pregnant women with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were compared. The findings should alert pregnant individuals and clinicians to implement strictly all the recommended COVID-19 preventive measures.


As a side note: a website that considers Breitbart and Natural News as valid sources might not be the best source of information.


LOL. You completely and conveniently skipped over the fundamental problem with the paper's statistical analysis, which is that only 127 women were among those studied who got vaccinated before the third trimester. Thus, out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark.

Based on the completely flawed 12.6% miscarried statistic the paper instead cited to assuage vaccination fears of pregnant women and their doctors, it appears to me that the New England Journal of Medicine might not be the best source of information.


No.

The report by Shimabukuro et al. includes safety results for 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age who identified as pregnant and the first 3958 participants who enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry. In both cohorts, 54% of the participants received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine and 46% received the Moderna vaccine. The age distribution, status with respect to race and ethnic group, and timing of the first dose were similar with each vaccine. Among v-safe participants, 86.5% had a known pregnancy at the time of vaccination, and 13.5% reported a positive pregnancy test after vaccination. Among v-safe pregnancy registry participants, 28.6% received vaccine in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester.

Among 827 registry participants who reported a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%) and in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%); these percentages are well within the range expected as an outcome for this age group of persons whose other underlying medical conditions are unknown.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8220929/
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Sat Jul 03, 2021 5:59 pm

DrEvil » 03 Jul 2021 18:24 wrote:
stickdog99 » Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:44 am wrote:
DrEvil » 02 Jul 2021 22:08 wrote:Miscarriages happen early in pregnancy, so you would expect them to be clustered in the first and second trimester. Out of all the pregnant women 12.6% miscarried, which is about the same as before the pandemic.

On the other hand:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamape ... le/2779182

Conclusions and Relevance In this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with consistent and substantial increases in severe maternal morbidity and mortality and neonatal complications when pregnant women with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were compared. The findings should alert pregnant individuals and clinicians to implement strictly all the recommended COVID-19 preventive measures.


As a side note: a website that considers Breitbart and Natural News as valid sources might not be the best source of information.


LOL. You completely and conveniently skipped over the fundamental problem with the paper's statistical analysis, which is that only 127 women were among those studied who got vaccinated before the third trimester. Thus, out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark.

Based on the completely flawed 12.6% miscarried statistic the paper instead cited to assuage vaccination fears of pregnant women and their doctors, it appears to me that the New England Journal of Medicine might not be the best source of information.


No.

The report by Shimabukuro et al. includes safety results for 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age who identified as pregnant and the first 3958 participants who enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry. In both cohorts, 54% of the participants received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine and 46% received the Moderna vaccine. The age distribution, status with respect to race and ethnic group, and timing of the first dose were similar with each vaccine. Among v-safe participants, 86.5% had a known pregnancy at the time of vaccination, and 13.5% reported a positive pregnancy test after vaccination. Among v-safe pregnancy registry participants, 28.6% received vaccine in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester.

Among 827 registry participants who reported a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%) and in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%); these percentages are well within the range expected as an outcome for this age group of persons whose other underlying medical conditions are unknown.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8220929/


Here is the whole NEJM article.

After carefully reading the whole thing for myself, it is clear to me that the original article I tentatively posted with a clear disclaimer that I felt it had to have been overstated presented **a clearly flawed analysis of these data, as you have suggested**. However, this scientific article is just as flawed in its presentation of the relevant data and especially in those data the investigators mysteriously chose to withhold from the published results. For example:

What percentage of women in the study who got their vaccination before gestation have already experienced spontaneous abortions?

What percentage of women in the study who got their vaccination in the first trimester have already experienced spontaneous abortions?

What percentage of women in the study who got their vaccination in the second trimester have already experienced spontaneous abortions?


The fact that only 12.5% of vaccinated women who **completed pregnancies** during this short study experienced spontaneous abortions is not at all surprising considering that spontaneous abortions are defined as miscarriages that occur within 20 weeks (less than 7 months) of gestation. This, the "bottom line" statistic this study presented is an inherently flawed metric, which was IMHO purposefully designed by the Pharma shills who published these data to falsely reassure doctors, pregnant women, and women considering pregnancy about the supposed safety of mRNA vaccines for pregnant women. The actual relevant safety data bolded above are for some reason being actively suppressed.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2107070

Given that there was a relatively small number of completed pregnancies and that live births were typically after vaccination in the third trimester, Shimabukuro et al. acknowledge the limitations in their ability to draw conclusions about congenital anomalies and other potential rare neonatal outcomes. Despite these limitations, this report provides important information that was not previously available. ...

It is notable that as of April 26, 2021, more than 100,000 pregnant women reported having received a Covid-19 vaccination and yet only a small fraction (4.7%) have enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry.7 This situation underscores the urgent need not only to include pregnant women in clinical trials, but also to invest in public health surveillance systems for pregnancy, involving much larger numbers of women. To prepare for the next pandemic and improve health outcomes for pregnant women more generally, it is past time to invest in maternal health surveillance and research.


IMHO, these authors could have released the most relevant data that they had available right now, but they chose not to and instead to focus on the most reassuring way they could possibly present the data they had.

They had data on almost 3,000 women who had received the vaccines before the third trimester, but they mysteriously avoided presenting any data on the rate of spontaneous abortions among just those groups, broken out by vaccine. Why?

Look at all of this comparatively irrelevant supplementary data:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/ ... pendix.pdf

Why did they not publish the most relevant data that they certainly had available?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby DrEvil » Sat Jul 03, 2021 7:19 pm

stickdog99 » Sat Jul 03, 2021 11:59 pm wrote:
DrEvil » 03 Jul 2021 18:24 wrote:
stickdog99 » Sat Jul 03, 2021 3:44 am wrote:
DrEvil » 02 Jul 2021 22:08 wrote:Miscarriages happen early in pregnancy, so you would expect them to be clustered in the first and second trimester. Out of all the pregnant women 12.6% miscarried, which is about the same as before the pandemic.

On the other hand:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamape ... le/2779182

Conclusions and Relevance In this multinational cohort study, COVID-19 in pregnancy was associated with consistent and substantial increases in severe maternal morbidity and mortality and neonatal complications when pregnant women with and without COVID-19 diagnosis were compared. The findings should alert pregnant individuals and clinicians to implement strictly all the recommended COVID-19 preventive measures.


As a side note: a website that considers Breitbart and Natural News as valid sources might not be the best source of information.


LOL. You completely and conveniently skipped over the fundamental problem with the paper's statistical analysis, which is that only 127 women were among those studied who got vaccinated before the third trimester. Thus, out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark.

Based on the completely flawed 12.6% miscarried statistic the paper instead cited to assuage vaccination fears of pregnant women and their doctors, it appears to me that the New England Journal of Medicine might not be the best source of information.


No.

The report by Shimabukuro et al. includes safety results for 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age who identified as pregnant and the first 3958 participants who enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry. In both cohorts, 54% of the participants received the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine and 46% received the Moderna vaccine. The age distribution, status with respect to race and ethnic group, and timing of the first dose were similar with each vaccine. Among v-safe participants, 86.5% had a known pregnancy at the time of vaccination, and 13.5% reported a positive pregnancy test after vaccination. Among v-safe pregnancy registry participants, 28.6% received vaccine in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester.

Among 827 registry participants who reported a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%) and in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%); these percentages are well within the range expected as an outcome for this age group of persons whose other underlying medical conditions are unknown.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8220929/


Here is the whole NEJM article.

After carefully reading the whole thing for myself, it is clear to me that the original article I tentatively posted with a clear disclaimer that I felt it had to have been overstated presented **a clearly flawed analysis of these data, as you have suggested**. However, this scientific article is just as flawed in its presentation of the relevant data and especially in those data the investigators mysteriously chose to withhold from the published results. For example:


If by "clearly flawed analysis" you mean "blatant lies", I wholeheartedly agree.

What percentage of women in the study who got their vaccination before gestation have already experienced spontaneous abortions?

What percentage of women in the study who got their vaccination in the first trimester have already experienced spontaneous abortions?

What percentage of women in the study who got their vaccination in the second trimester have already experienced spontaneous abortions?


The fact that only 12.5% of vaccinated women who **completed pregnancies** during this short study experienced spontaneous abortions is not at all surprising considering that spontaneous abortions are defined as miscarriages that occur within 20 weeks (less than 7 months) of gestation. This, the "bottom line" statistic this study presented is an inherently flawed metric, which was IMHO purposefully designed by the Pharma shills who published these data to falsely reassure doctors, pregnant women, and women considering pregnancy about the supposed safety of mRNA vaccines for pregnant women. The actual relevant safety data bolded above are for some reason being actively suppressed.


Actively suppressed? Where did you get that? This is a preliminary study on the effects of the vaccines on pregnant women, not a comprehensive analysis of all aspects.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2107070

Given that there was a relatively small number of completed pregnancies and that live births were typically after vaccination in the third trimester, Shimabukuro et al. acknowledge the limitations in their ability to draw conclusions about congenital anomalies and other potential rare neonatal outcomes. Despite these limitations, this report provides important information that was not previously available. ...

It is notable that as of April 26, 2021, more than 100,000 pregnant women reported having received a Covid-19 vaccination and yet only a small fraction (4.7%) have enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry.7 This situation underscores the urgent need not only to include pregnant women in clinical trials, but also to invest in public health surveillance systems for pregnancy, involving much larger numbers of women. To prepare for the next pandemic and improve health outcomes for pregnant women more generally, it is past time to invest in maternal health surveillance and research.


IMHO, these authors could have released the most relevant data that they had available right now, but they chose not to and instead to focus on the most reassuring way they could possibly present the data they had.

They had data on almost 3,000 women who had received the vaccines before the third trimester, but they mysteriously avoided presenting any data on the rate of spontaneous abortions among just those groups, broken out by vaccine. Why?

Look at all of this comparatively irrelevant supplementary data:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/ ... pendix.pdf

Why did they not publish the most relevant data that they certainly had available?


Sure, more data is always nice, but again, preliminary study. Why is it so important to know exactly what trimester they were in? Isn't the more important number the number of spontaneous abortions, regardless of trimester? If it's higher than usual - bad, if it's not - good.

Let's say the data shows an unusually high number of miscarriages in the first trimester, then there would also have to be a correspondingly low number of miscarriages in the second trimester for the numbers to come out as they did, and that doesn't sound very plausible.
"I only read American. I want my fantasy pure." - Dave
User avatar
DrEvil
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 1:37 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Grizzly » Sat Jul 03, 2021 9:09 pm



The only reason to do this is because they know that the vast majority of parents would never allow this, so they have to go behind their backs. Wtf!! Parents need to stand up now!!! :mad2
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Marionumber1 » Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:35 pm

Yeah, bodily autonomy is paramount! :yay Except for people who are underage, they're all clearly too dumb to decide what to do with their own body and should have those decisions dictated by their parents instead.

^ Not a comment on the merit of getting or not getting vaccines, but on how hypocritical it seems to rightfully oppose mandatory vaccination policies on the basis of bodily autonomy and then advocate against those same principles for sufficiently knowledgeable children who might actually want to get it. The spokesman clearly said that it is children who are judged to be of sufficient mental competence to understand the decision, not just children across the board.
Marionumber1
 
Posts: 374
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 12:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby stickdog99 » Sun Jul 04, 2021 4:35 am

Marionumber1 » 04 Jul 2021 02:35 wrote:Yeah, bodily autonomy is paramount! :yay Except for people who are underage, they're all clearly too dumb to decide what to do with their own body and should have those decisions dictated by their parents instead.

^ Not a comment on the merit of getting or not getting vaccines, but on how hypocritical it seems to rightfully oppose mandatory vaccination policies on the basis of bodily autonomy and then advocate against those same principles for sufficiently knowledgeable children who might actually want to get it. The spokesman clearly said that it is children who are judged to be of sufficient mental competence to understand the decision, not just children across the board.


I get the point, but what gives any officials the right to decide when a child they are actively encouraging to be vaccinated is "of sufficient mental competence to understand the decision" that this official is actively encouraging the child to make?
stickdog99
 
Posts: 6562
Joined: Tue Jul 12, 2005 5:42 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Coronavirus Crisis: Main Thread

Postby Elvis » Sun Jul 04, 2021 7:25 pm

drstrangelove » Thu Jul 01, 2021 10:34 pm wrote:Society always wins out over institutions in the end.


Isn't society defined by its institutions?
“The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.” ― Joan Robinson
User avatar
Elvis
 
Posts: 7562
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2008 7:24 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests