The Canadian Guitar Forum banner
2321 - 2340 of 3261 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,867 Posts
This more recent discussion is why I keep emphasizing the need to continue to mask, distance, and keep things and hands clean, until we've run out of people to catch it from. Relying exclusively on vaccines WILL get us into, and keep us, in trouble.

Keep in mind that development of an effective vaccine involves balancing the degree of specificity and generality. You want it to provoke an immune response to things that shouldn't be in your body, and ignore things that should. So what characteristics are there that are unique to something that shouldn't be in your body? There was some talk a year ago that previous immunization with a flu vaccine might provide some partial or additional protection, because of overlap between coronaviruses and influenza. I don't know what happened with that, but it illustrates the principle that some pathogens can share features with a new one that allow for an immunity to a prior pathogen to help out while a new immunity gets established.

There has also been much debate about whether it is "better" (i.e., more effective with fewer cases and hospitalizations) to go with the same vaccine for both shots (or even 3), or change between shots. In truth, that exploration was more sparked by temporary shortages of this or that vaccine, as well as shortages of willing recipients. "Is it possible for me to have Pfizer or Moderna this time? I heard some bad stuff about AstraZeneca and I'm kinda worried." At present, Canada is one of a handful of countries that have given a well-considered thumbs up to mixing vaccines. As I understand it, regardless of sticking with the same one, or switching, spreading shots out about 12 weeks seems to yield best immune response, in terms of measurable indices of immunity.

All of this variant talk has me wondering, though. We were encouraged to get our flu shots last fall, so as to avoid a double whammy of covid and flu cases filling up and constipating our hospitals. (I got mine the week they became available.) Coupled with the various other public health measures over the past year, including travel restrictions, I wonder if the traditional need for a seasonal flu shot (in response to spread and variant development) has been diminished. For an understandable variety of reasons (i.e., busy with other emergencies), hospitals may not be in a great position to have accurately tracked incidence of the flu; although word is that all that masking, distancing and sanitizer seems to have prevented the double whammy they were expecting. Still, I wonder if, with everything that has happened, my flu shot from last October is still valid because there hasn't been any new variant spreading. I honestly don't know.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,026 Posts
Still, I wonder if, with everything that has happened, my flu shot from last October is still valid because there hasn't been any new variant spreading. I honestly don't know.
A very good question, indeed. I too got my flu shot last winter. I just assumed I'd get it again this year. I hadn't wondered if the flu had been eradicated because no one caught it last year. I mean, if no one else catches covid for the next year we'd consider it over, right? Is it possible for the flu to work that way too?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,583 Posts
my father didn't get a nobel prize in engineering, couldn't fix one company here in canada, but move to the states and turned around that one.

he stopped engineering at the first one and moved into management when moving to the states.

now he's sought after for fixing fuckups for most the major auto companies, because he's amazing at what he does.

I wouldn't use your criteria to judge someone's credibility. mark criticizing his actual argument is the better route.
Ok, what you interpreted wasn't what I meant, sorry for my bad communicating. I try to use few words, sometimes too few.
I was implying he may have an axe to grind with Pfizer, or perhaps it's more personal and with certain people there. His change in opinion is unusual.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,736 Posts
That's fine. The question is: what criteria or evidence do you require, or find sufficient, to set your leariness aside? Is such evidence reasonably obtainable, or does the leariness simply persist because it's "big industry"? And what big industries merit suspicion, and in what ways? For instance, Apotex is a big frigging company. Huge. They make generic drugs, as well as lots of money. The greater affordability of such generics lowers the costs for governments and individuals, which increases their availability. Should I be leary of them by virtue of their size and the fact they are part of the pharmaceutical industry, or does their manufacture of generics dub them pure as the driven snow?

I find that to be the most exasperating thing about the conspiracy-minded (NOT pointing any finger at yourself). It's the degree to which the narrative such persons adopt is often immune to any sort of contrary evidence. In Karl Popper's terms, their argument and belief is not "falsifiable", and all too often the conspiracy-minded will change the narrative in order to keep it safe from contrary evidence.

People are weird.
Ideally, I would love to have a team of scientists with zero interest in making money and zero government ties go over the existing data that includes testing for covid, the vaccine's efficacy, the repurposing of existing medications and the claims of ivermectin (this one really confuses me - video to follow).

Whether this is reasonable to ask for...I seriously doubt it. Even if it was accomplished, I'd probably still have to sort out the morons who come up with convincing counter claims.

I'm not a conspiracy guy...but I believe that people with power and money want more and will do what they need to protect it. Conversely, I believe that people without money or power will do what they can to get it. Obviously, I'm generalizing and there are exceptions. There was an interesting documentary made by the heir to the johnson and johnson empire about just being a rich kid in New York (trump's kid was in it among others)...it provides good insight into the shittiness of these rich people.

Anecdotally, I have a fairly intimate knowledge of the workings of large companies in the automotive industry through my father - although he is very good at english, it is his 5th language, so I proofread a lot of his outgoing emails that are considered 'important' - some of the shit I see is sketchy at best.

Further, I'm ashamed to admit that working with the government (regional, municipal, and federal) wasn't a non-sketch experience. I've stolen work from a specialized contractor that was caught doing sketchy stuff with government employees. You remember when I worked for the RCMP one weekend (I've worked for them repeatedly, mind you) and met up with you ottawans? THAT job was sketch, but I have paid the price on a personal level and I'm glad that I sold my company and moved on.

I realize the companies noted above are unrelated to big pharma, but companies are virtually cookie-cutter in my opinion and the above does weigh in on my opinion.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,736 Posts
Can someone look this? If they are speaking the truth, then, again, it's a complete mindfuck for me. They are biologists with, again, nothing to gain. Their shows have been shut out of mainstream media, but they seem credible.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,026 Posts
Can someone look this? If they are speaking the truth, then, again, it's a complete mindfuck for me. They are biologists with, again, nothing to gain. Their shows have been shut out of mainstream media, but they seem credible.

Ivermectin - the wonder drug that nobody will say they're using. The one that no doctors will show a study of it's success - despite the fact that all of 6 doctors published a protocol that they claim works. The drug that I can find nothing substantive about it's real-world success.

You wanna see success? Take a look at Portugal - the one major country that actually succeeded in getting most of it's population vaccinated (87% first dose, 81.5% second). Check their cases, their deaths. Look as deep as you'd like. Vaccinations work. Why are we still trying to use this other stuff?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,795 Posts
Can someone look this? If they are speaking the truth, then, again, it's a complete mindfuck for me. They are biologists with, again, nothing to gain. Their shows have been shut out of mainstream media, but they seem credible.

I think that the issue is this. The lady talking at 1.05m mark with " Is it dangerous...noooooo...it's been given in hundreds of millions of doses".

A good example of this foible is a drug called Warfarin. In carefully issued doses, it's a very effective treatment as a blood thinner in very specific circumstances. That doesn't mean that you can run out to the local Home Depot and grab a bottle of rat poison and ingest it in the same manner. I think that they're trying to avoid a situation where people that don't pay attention to the details and follow professional medical advice might take it upon themselves to self treat based on Dr. Google or Joe Rogan.

It would also be akin to telling someone to use some sandpaper to perform a fret job on a guitar. Devil's in the details.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
753 Posts
Ivermectin - the wonder drug that nobody will say they're using. The one that no doctors will show a study of it's success - despite the fact that all of 6 doctors published a protocol that they claim works. The drug that I can find nothing substantive about it's real-world success.

You wanna see success? Take a look at Portugal - the one major country that actually succeeded in getting most of it's population vaccinated (87% first dose, 81.5% second). Check their cases, their deaths. Look as deep as you'd like. Vaccinations work. Why are we still trying to use this other stuff?
That's a complete head scratcher for me. Why would someone seriously consider using Invermectin while simultaneously saying they have doubts about the safety of COVOD vaccinations?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,026 Posts
That's a complete head scratcher for me. Why would someone seriously consider using Invermectin while simultaneously saying they have doubts about the safety of COVOD vaccinations?
Yup - but every day it matters to 50,000 less Canadians as they join the majority by getting their first jabs. In a couple months, the 3 or 6% left can meet down at the corner and share their favorite memes with each other.(y)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,867 Posts
Dr. John Campbell, whom some of you might follow on Youtube, summarized a recently published (and peer-reviewed) meta-analysis of ivermectin efficacy back in June.

Meta-analysis is a statistical technique for combining many smaller studies into a single data-set. Statistical support for an outcome is generally established by "rejection of the null hypothesis"; that is, calculating whether the observed result is one that could easily occur by chance, or is conspicuously different than what probability theory/models would dictate. Unfortunately, small clinical studies rarely have the "statistical power" to be able to reject the null hypothesis,. It takes a certain quantum of data to have any degree of certainty. So small studies can kinda sorta look promising, but don't provide any solid evidence one way or the other. Combining multiple studies, via meta-analysis, can provide the statistical power that can allow someone to say "there's something there", or alternatively say "there's just as much nothing there as we thought, but now we're more certain of it". There are ground-rules for meta-analysis. The studies have to be comparable in a number of important and assured ways. You can't just throw it all in the pot and make claims from a data soup-du-jour. For a number of fields and phenomena, really the only way to draw strong inferences IS via meta-analysis. (Fun Fact: Frank Schmidt, one of the acknowledged godfathers of meta-analysis, passed away just a few weeks ago. University of Iowa meta-analysis pioneer Frank Schmidt dies at 77 )

The study Campbell summarizes involved 2,438 patients, combining all the studies. Chuck will be happy that all were completely independent, self-funded, non-corporate, non-governmental studies. Not all provided high confidence or certainty in the results, but it was enough to take seriously. At the 13:00 mark, Campbell notes that those NOT receiving ivermectin were about 3.39x more likely to die from Covid than ivermectin recipients. That's not nothing, but pales in comparison to the substantially greater likelihood of death in unvaccinated persons compared to vaccinated. And I hasten to add, that lower death rate in the vaccinated is across hundreds of millions of people, rather than 2,438.

So, again, it's not nothing, and Campbell notes the ridiculously low cost of tablets (NOT the horse-paste people have been rushing to buy, before they have to call the poison control centre), that public health officials would LOVE to be able to recommend, if only there was some certainty of benefit and no risks entailed.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
495 Posts
Internet podcasters/ personalities / channels / influencers etc. are in business for themselves. They create content.

The "spicier" the content, the more money they make. Make no mistake, podcasters target their demographics and cater exclusively to the mindset of subscribers. Content: Find and pay an "expert" to say "x", make a video clip that goes viral. That is just good business.

Facts, science, hey, a little bit goes a long way. They know the line. The primary goal is to create continuous content, attract attention and new subscribers. More views = power.

People are unbelievably gullible. It is frightening how many subscribers truly believe that the "personalities" who reinforce their views are selfless heros speaking the "real truth". Spoiler... They want your money... or vote or... sponsor money...or

Yet, no subscriber thinks they are a sucker or weak minded. Frankly, it is rather fascinating how this works... one of human natures vulnerabilities.

Critical thinking seems to have gone out of fashion. People prefer to rely on self biased "Entertainment tonight" information sources. Slogans are being accepted as fact/science. Add in a psychological element, (FEAR!!!), voila!, viral content (aka $'s).

"PANDEMIC OF VARIANTS!!!" Tune in next week....

Sadly, the business of "bias selling" is so slick, so persuasive on the surface, that many people eat the wafer and never think twice. (See spoiler above).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
14,255 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Diablo

·
Registered
Joined
·
753 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
709 Posts
Can someone look this? If they are speaking the truth, then, again, it's a complete mindfuck for me. They are biologists with, again, nothing to gain. Their shows have been shut out of mainstream media, but they seem credible.

I've been following the experience of Uttar Pradesh, a heavily populated state in India, with the drug ivermectin since last year. They have continued to do quite well with it, in controlling their covid case count.

Also of note is what has happened in Zimbabwe, where after giving Ivermectin as a prophylaxis and in treatment, they reduced their death count per day, from 70+ to single digits. Half way down the page is an interview with a Dr. Jackie Stone, who is a front line doctor with years of previous experience in dealing with HIV and Malaria patients.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
495 Posts
@HighNoon

Dude, here is a fucking clue for you.

I looked at the Newsrescue.com link you reference above. Seriously, this is absolute bullshit tabloid pseudo christian attention grabbing rubbish. Like damn... way off in the weeds...

You call this credible??? News flash, if you are basing your "grand vision" on this shit... maybe reach out a bit further than you have been recently.

Wow, just Wow.... but take care.

Scroll down the page, on the right. More scholarly articles...
Product Rectangle Font Screenshot Parallel
 
2321 - 2340 of 3261 Posts
Top