Coronavirus COVID-19

[JohnStOnge]

We'll see if this really happens, but I'm not thinking it will. It's something I've pointed out for years on this board. The medical community does not like to be called out on their unsubstantiated claims, but yet, are always unwilling to discuss what EXACTLY is wrong with countering claims.

Dr. Peter McCullough is under fire from the American Board of Internal Medicine (A.B.I.M.), who is threatening his medical license for “providing false and inaccurate information to patients”. Senator Ron Johnson has responded with a call for A.B.I.M. and Dr. McCullough to participate in an open hearing on Capitol Hill, and put it all on the table of public record.

https://thehighwire.com/videos/medical- ... c-hearing/

Where in that article you linked does it say the medical community is not willing to discuss what is wrong with the guy's claims?

Also, though you refuse to accept it, I will post the media bias fact check assessment of the site you linked:



Yes, I know you will not accept it. But you keep citing these REALLY questionable sources. You should stop.

[BDKJMU]

It can be helpful to quote a key point or two from the piece ...

Here is a contradictory study: https://news.worcester.edu/moattari-co- ... 19-deaths/

What you should do is just listen to pubic health experts such as those at the CDC. They are aware of all the studies. They are aware of the credibility of the Journals they are published in.

I just looked again at the Google thing and found another one: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/ ... 0for%20all). A quote:

Mask mandates were associated with a 0.7 percentage point decrease (p = 0.03) in daily COVID-19 death growth rates 1–20 days after implementation and decreases of 1.0, 1.4, 1.6, and 1.9 percentage points 21–40, 41–60, 61–80, and 81–100 days, respectively, after implementation (p<0.01 for all).

I suspect what you are going to find if you pursue this is that most studies show a benefit of masking. But the deniers are going to look for outlier studies that flatter their point of view.

Is this the same CDC who’s public health experts say men can get pregnant? Asking for a friend..

[SeattleGriz]

We'll see if this really happens, but I'm not thinking it will. It's something I've pointed out for years on this board. The medical community does not like to be called out on their unsubstantiated claims, but yet, are always unwilling to discuss what EXACTLY is wrong with countering claims.



https://thehighwire.com/videos/medical- ... c-hearing/

Where in that article you linked does it say the medical community is not willing to discuss what is wrong with the guy's claims?

Also, though you refuse to accept it, I will post the media bias fact check assessment of the site you linked:



Yes, I know you will not accept it. But you keep citing these REALLY questionable sources. You should stop.

Coming from the guy who cites a website that has been trashed by everyone as the guy running the site isn't a journalist, nor does he tell anyone his rating matrix.

Besides, the crappy website I posted simply repeated what they heard on the news. There was no bias in reporting a fact.

Here's the same fact on Ron Johnson's website.


https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2022/ ... blic-forum

On Wednesday, U.S. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent a letter to CEO and President of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), Dr. Richard Baron, regarding ABIM’s meeting to determine “whether to recommend any disciplinary sanction against” Dr. Peter McCullough for his views on COVID-19. Sen. Johnson invited Dr. Baron to participate in a public forum with Dr. McCullough, and any other medical experts of their choosing, so the public may hear from many sides regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

To answer your question, when HAS the medical community discussed differing opinions on COVID? The only time we ever hear anything is when Fauci obfuscates Rand Paul and that isn't even very much in depth. It's also very disconcerting you can't even tell a simple factual statement from one you consider to be bias.

[SeattleGriz]

And another conspiracy theory comes true. Remember when the shots wouldn't affect your fertility? Remember those lies?

Well, it's true. Things eventually come back to normal around 150 days, but the study did not include if booster shots then reduce sperm concentration and motility again.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209

Repetitive measurements revealed −15.4% sperm concentration decrease on T2 (CI -25.5%–3.9%, p = 0.01) leading to total motile count 22.1% reduction (CI -35% - -6.6%, p = 0.007) compared to T0. Similarly, analysis of first semen sample only and samples' mean per donor resulted in concentration and TMC reductions on T2 compared to T0 - median decline of 12 million/ml and 31 million motile spermatozoa, respectively (p = 0.02 and 0.002 respectively) on first sample evaluation and median decline of 9.5×106 and 27.3 million motile spermatozoa (p = 0.004 and 0.003, respectively) on samples' mean examination. T3 evaluation demonstrated overall recovery.

[JohnStOnge]

Wow. Four shots and Fauci is still Covid positive. Harsh outcome for a guy that said vaccines were a dead end for the virus.

Anyone waking up yet to the selective pressure the vaccines placed on the virus? Anyone seen recent stats on vaccinated cases, hospitalizations and deaths? No. Wonder why.

Where's StOnge?

There is no evidence that the variants that have caused problems are the result of selective pressure the vaccines placed on the virus. Both Delta and Omicron arose under low vaccination rate circumstances.

With respect to your statement about stats on vaccinated cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, here is a report from Washington State:

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ ... inated.pdf

I'm sorry I haven't been here much lately. I've been doing other things.

BTW, nobody would say vaccines would be a dead end for the virus given the problem we've had with the kind of anti vaccine nonsense that's been going around and being believed by way too many people. The United States still only has a 67% fully vaccinated rate. Plus, really, true "fully vaccinated" at this point includes getting the initial series then getting boosted and we only have 32% of the population that's done that.

[JohnStOnge]

And another conspiracy theory comes true. Remember when the shots wouldn't affect your fertility? Remember those lies?

Well, it's true. Things eventually come back to normal around 150 days, but the study did not include if booster shots then reduce sperm concentration and motility again.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209

Repetitive measurements revealed −15.4% sperm concentration decrease on T2 (CI -25.5%–3.9%, p = 0.01) leading to total motile count 22.1% reduction (CI -35% - -6.6%, p = 0.007) compared to T0. Similarly, analysis of first semen sample only and samples' mean per donor resulted in concentration and TMC reductions on T2 compared to T0 - median decline of 12 million/ml and 31 million motile spermatozoa, respectively (p = 0.02 and 0.002 respectively) on first sample evaluation and median decline of 9.5×106 and 27.3 million motile spermatozoa (p = 0.004 and 0.003, respectively) on samples' mean examination. T3 evaluation demonstrated overall recovery.

The fertility discussions I recall were about female fertility. The study report you linked talks about a temporary reduction in sperm concentration after vaccination. It does not appear to suggest any permanent effect. Nobody was lying.

[SeattleGriz]

Wow. Four shots and Fauci is still Covid positive. Harsh outcome for a guy that said vaccines were a dead end for the virus.

Anyone waking up yet to the selective pressure the vaccines placed on the virus? Anyone seen recent stats on vaccinated cases, hospitalizations and deaths? No. Wonder why.

Where's StOnge?

There is no evidence that the variants that have caused problems are the result of selective pressure the vaccines placed on the virus. Both Delta and Omicron arose under low vaccination rate circumstances.

With respect to your statement about stats on vaccinated cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, here is a report from Washington State:

https://doh.wa.gov/sites/default/files/ ... inated.pdf

I'm sorry I haven't been here much lately. I've been doing other things.

BTW, nobody would say vaccines would be a dead end for the virus given the problem we've had with the kind of anti vaccine nonsense that's been going around and being believed by way too many people. The United States still only has a 67% fully vaccinated rate. Plus, really, true "fully vaccinated" at this point includes getting the initial series then getting boosted and we only have 32% of the population that's done that.

Fauci called it a dead end bro.

In regards to vaccine evasion due to selective pressure, how are you explaining VE's of over -400% for the vaccinated with Omicron?

If you're not buying that, how do you explain bacteria becoming antibiotic resistant? Same pressure/natural selection process.

Welcome back by the way!

Also looking to find an old study from a couple months ago from Michigan State in which they looked at the vaccine and predicted which changes would happen due to selective pressure and they were right, showing said pressure caused the virus to mutate. I bookmark interesting studies and unfortunately cleared out my bookmarks because I got tired of scrolling through so many and never looking at them.

[JohnStOnge]

Mask mandates caused MORE China Virus deaths..
https://thenationalpulse.com/2022/05/26 ... ath-rates/

Just posting a link to the study at https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamane ... le/2781283 because it also looked at the State of Kansas and led to the opposite conclusion with respect to deaths.

Counties that adopted the July mask mandate in Kansas experienced significantly lower rates of COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths compared with those that did not.

[SeattleGriz]

And another conspiracy theory comes true. Remember when the shots wouldn't affect your fertility? Remember those lies?

Well, it's true. Things eventually come back to normal around 150 days, but the study did not include if booster shots then reduce sperm concentration and motility again.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209

The fertility discussions I recall were about female fertility. The study report you linked talks about a temporary reduction in sperm concentration after vaccination. It does not appear to suggest any permanent effect. Nobody was lying.

There were discussions about female infertility, in which I haven't seen any reductions, but in regards to male fertility reductions, let me walk you down memory lane.

For about the first year the vaccines were available, the public was told that the shot stayed localized in your shoulder and the mRNA would be degraded as soon as translation occured. Well, due to a FOIA, it was discovered the Japanese performed a biodistribution study and with that, discovered that the vaccine actually accumulated in other areas of the body. This study was denied by the so called fact checkers until Pfizer's own documents came out proving the vaccine didn't stay localized (link below).

https://www.westernstandard.news/busine ... user-share

So now that Pfizer admitted their vaccine didn't stay localized, everyone started asking if it would affect both male and female fertility. Of course the woman aspect took off before this time because so many women had commented on changes to their menses... another "fact" that was checked and we were told was a lie.

In addition, we recently had the Stanford U study that showed the vaccine actually stayed in your body for up to 60 days and was still expressing spike protein at 60 days. The only reason we don't know past 60 is that is how long the study lasted. Could be longer.

Well now you have a peer reviewed study that shows reduction in semen concentration and motile count AND has not been expanded to see if boosters cause the same effect as the base two doses.

StOnge, it's been one lie after another.

[JohnStOnge]

Where in that article you linked does it say the medical community is not willing to discuss what is wrong with the guy's claims?

Also, though you refuse to accept it, I will post the media bias fact check assessment of the site you linked:



Yes, I know you will not accept it. But you keep citing these REALLY questionable sources. You should stop.

Coming from the guy who cites a website that has been trashed by everyone as the guy running the site isn't a journalist, nor does he tell anyone his rating matrix.

Besides, the crappy website I posted simply repeated what they heard on the news. There was no bias in reporting a fact.

Here's the same fact on Ron Johnson's website.


https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2022/ ... blic-forum

On Wednesday, U.S. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) sent a letter to CEO and President of the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM), Dr. Richard Baron, regarding ABIM’s meeting to determine “whether to recommend any disciplinary sanction against” Dr. Peter McCullough for his views on COVID-19. Sen. Johnson invited Dr. Baron to participate in a public forum with Dr. McCullough, and any other medical experts of their choosing, so the public may hear from many sides regarding the COVID-19 pandemic.

To answer your question, when HAS the medical community discussed differing opinions on COVID? The only time we ever hear anything is when Fauci obfuscates Rand Paul and that isn't even very much in depth. It's also very disconcerting you can't even tell a simple factual statement from one you consider to be bias.

"Everyone" has not "trashed" mediabiasfactcheck.com. The site has a "transparency" section with detailed discussion of how it does things.

However, there is nothing in the short article at the link that appears to be untrue. I have no reason to believe the ABIM is not considering disciplinary action and no reason to believe Johnson didn't send the referenced letter.

I think the medical community has ongoing discussions of differing opinions on COVID. I think that the problem arises when people start making unsubstantiated claims. We have well established, effective systems for determining whether things are safe and effective. Looking at the article at https://abcnews.go.com/US/group-physici ... d=83097330, it looks like the Doctor in question has been promoting things that have NOT been demonstrated to be safe and effective while discouraging use of other things that HAVE been demonstrated to be safe and effective.

[SeattleGriz]

Coming from the guy who cites a website that has been trashed by everyone as the guy running the site isn't a journalist, nor does he tell anyone his rating matrix.

Besides, the crappy website I posted simply repeated what they heard on the news. There was no bias in reporting a fact.

Here's the same fact on Ron Johnson's website.


https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/2022/ ... blic-forum



To answer your question, when HAS the medical community discussed differing opinions on COVID? The only time we ever hear anything is when Fauci obfuscates Rand Paul and that isn't even very much in depth. It's also very disconcerting you can't even tell a simple factual statement from one you consider to be bias.

"Everyone" has not "trashed" mediabiasfactcheck.com. The site has a "transparency" section with detailed discussion of how it does things.

However, there is nothing in the short article at the link that appears to be untrue. I have no reason to believe the ABIM is not considering disciplinary action and no reason to believe Johnson didn't send the referenced letter.

I think the medical community has ongoing discussions of differing opinions on COVID. I think that the problem arises when people start making unsubstantiated claims. We have well established, effective systems for determining whether things are safe and effective. Looking at the article at https://abcnews.go.com/US/group-physici ... d=83097330, it looks like the Doctor in question has been promoting things that have NOT been demonstrated to be safe and effective while discouraging use of other things that HAVE been demonstrated to be safe and effective.

When Wikipedia says this about your fact checking website, it's pretty much everyone.

Van Zandt admits he is not an expert and that "his methods are not rigorously objective.

According to Daniel Funke and Alexios Mantzarlis of the Poynter Institute, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[2] In 2018, the Columbia Journalism Review identified Media Bias/Fact Check as "an armchair media analysis."[9] Additionally, the Columbia Journalism Review described Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and characterized their assessments as "subjective assessments [that] leave room for human biases, or even simple inconsistencies, to creep in"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

[SeattleGriz]

Interesting observation on the sperm study. Seems the authors decided to use median instead of mean to determine everything was fine after 150 days. Will we see the raw data? Are there outliers that still suffer?

[Winterborn]

Interesting observation on the sperm study. Seems the authors decided to use median instead of mean to determine everything was fine after 150 days. Will we see the raw data? Are there outliers that still suffer?

“Statistics are like bikinis. What they reveal is interesting and what they hide is even better.” – Anon

[SDHornet]

[SDHornet]

[SeattleGriz]

2:20 second breakdown of the 6 month to 4 year kids trial for the vaccine. Notice the continual mentioning of excluding those that got vaccinated, caught Covid, and then left out due to the "fully vaccinated" parameters they have been allowing for this vaccine. A first as far as I know.

If you can't see that COVID was used to ram the mRNA platform through the approval process, then you never will. I do think mRNA has huge positive possibilities, but unfortunately we are not there with the science yet.

[SeattleGriz]

This UK preprint (non peer reviewed) was used to paint Covid as a top 5 reason of death by multiple "doctors" at the VRBPAC and ACIP meetings. The preprint was trashed by a regular mom and now they are fixing their errors. How the fuck does a mom pick up on this, but the CDC and FDA experts didn't? Need to clink into tweet to see they admitted they were wrong and will update.

Appalling this was used to justify vaccines for children.

[BDKJMU]

[SeattleGriz]

We'll see if this really happens, but I'm not thinking it will. It's something I've pointed out for years on this board. The medical community does not like to be called out on their unsubstantiated claims, but yet, are always unwilling to discuss what EXACTLY is wrong with countering claims.

Dr. Peter McCullough is under fire from the American Board of Internal Medicine (A.B.I.M.), who is threatening his medical license for “providing false and inaccurate information to patients”. Senator Ron Johnson has responded with a call for A.B.I.M. and Dr. McCullough to participate in an open hearing on Capitol Hill, and put it all on the table of public record.

https://thehighwire.com/videos/medical- ... c-hearing/

What do you know? ABIM declined an open hearing. Shameful.

[SeattleGriz]

Danish admit with what they know now, they wouldn't have vaccinated children. So who are you going to believe? The Danish who admitted they didn't get much out of vaccinating children, or the US and those that want to vaccinate 6mo old babies?

Lastly, can you imagine Fauci admitting failure?

https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2022-06- ... s%3A%3A%3A

When Søren Brostrøm hosted 'Go' evening Live 'on TV 2 on Wednesday night, he was asked if it was a mistake to vaccinate children.

- With what we know today: yes. With what we knew then: no, was the answer.

At the press conference earlier Wednesday, Søren Brostrøm also said that in the spring it was clear that the vaccines were not particularly preventive, but rather prevented serious illness, and that we must therefore now "take the learning further"

I want to look all parents of children who have vaccinated their child in the eye and say: "You did the right thing and thank you for listening". But at the same time - and this is the important thing to maintain confidence - I will admit and say that we have become wiser and we would not do the same today. And we will not do that in the future either, said Brostrøm.

[SeattleGriz]

WH is fine with lying to the public using a debunked non peer reviewed study from the UK. But we are assured that the CDC, who gave this to the WH, is the premier epidemiological institution in the world.

[JohnStOnge]

When Wikipedia says this about your fact checking website, it's pretty much everyone.

The University of Michigan Center for Social Media Responsibility uses Media Bias Fact Check as its fall back source for establishing it's "Iffy" quotient. It uses NewsGuard as it's primary source. But when NewsGuard has not rated a source, it uses Media Bias Fact Check. See https://csmr.umich.edu/projects/iffy-quotient/.

Do a Google on "Sources for Fact Checking media" and you will see that there are a number of institutions and entities that refer the refer the reader to Media Bias Fact Check. Here are some examples:

https://library.csi.cuny.edu/c.php?g=619342&p=4310783
https://guides.library.umass.edu/fakenews/factcheck
https://my.lwv.org/michigan/copper-coun ... t-checking
https://libguides.lakeheadu.ca/c.php?g=699699&p=4967982
https://guides.stlcc.edu/fakenews/factchecking

Those are on the first page that came up. I will stop there. But it is clear that not "everyone" thinks it is unreliable.

I'll also say that I invite anyone reading this to just look at what Media Bias Fact Check says about any particular entity then go to that entity and see what you think. So it for several entities. Do it for a bunch of them. I think you will come away from the exercise thinking Media Bias Fact Check is pretty darned good.

[JohnStOnge]

Danish admit with what they know now, they wouldn't have vaccinated children. So who are you going to believe? The Danish who admitted they didn't get much out of vaccinating children, or the US and those that want to vaccinate 6mo old babies?

Lastly, can you imagine Fauci admitting failure?

https://nyheder.tv2.dk/samfund/2022-06- ... s%3A%3A%3A

When Søren Brostrøm hosted 'Go' evening Live 'on TV 2 on Wednesday night, he was asked if it was a mistake to vaccinate children.

- With what we know today: yes. With what we knew then: no, was the answer.

At the press conference earlier Wednesday, Søren Brostrøm also said that in the spring it was clear that the vaccines were not particularly preventive, but rather prevented serious illness, and that we must therefore now "take the learning further"

I want to look all parents of children who have vaccinated their child in the eye and say: "You did the right thing and thank you for listening". But at the same time - and this is the important thing to maintain confidence - I will admit and say that we have become wiser and we would not do the same today. And we will not do that in the future either, said Brostrøm.

If it comes between Danish health authorities recommending one thing and US Health authorities recommending something else, I would go with US Health authorities.

https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/ ... 20children.

Scientific evidence has shown that the children who received COVID-19 vaccines during testing developed high levels of virus-fighting antibodies expected to protect them against coronavirus. Vaccines continue to be effective at preventing severe illness and hospitalization, including in children with and without any underlying medical conditions.

COVID-19 vaccines can also prevent multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children and may prevent long COVID, which can be debilitating for young children. Vaccines can protect children, which in turn can reduce the risk of transmission to others.

[JohnStOnge]

WH is fine with lying to the public using a debunked non peer reviewed study from the UK. But we are assured that the CDC, who gave this to the WH, is the premier epidemiological institution in the world.

What is the supposedly debunked non peer reviewed study from the UK you are talking about? And, yes, the CDC is the premier epidemiological agency in the world. Why are you believing some Kelly somebody doing a Tweet?

[SeattleGriz]

WH is fine with lying to the public using a debunked non peer reviewed study from the UK. But we are assured that the CDC, who gave this to the WH, is the premier epidemiological institution in the world.

What is the supposedly debunked non peer reviewed study from the UK you are talking about? And, yes, the CDC is the premier epidemiological agency in the world. Why are you believing some Kelly somebody doing a Tweet?

About a week before the meetings on approving the children's vaccines, a preprint from a group in the UK came out. They said COVID was a top 5 cause of death. That "some Kelly" is a regular gal, but figured out pretty quickly the UK team had been using the data inconsistently and incorrectly. As such, they updated the data and the preprint and Covid isn't top 5 anymore. But even AFTER the White House knew the preprint was incorrect, they still cite the wrong numbers.

House mom debunks the premier epidemiological institution.