Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Yes Virginia They Do Work
Date:	4/23/2022 8:22:23 AM (updated 4/23/2022 8:27:18 AM)

The vaccines work. Yes, you can still be a Covid victim even with the vaccine but the incidence is so much lower.

Name:	wix -	Reply
Subject:	Yes Virginia They Do Work
Date:	4/23/2022 3:36:53 PM

Interesting that you blanked out the source line at the bottom!!  Biden will soon be able to declare total dimokrap victory since he has sent 8 free tests to all who wanted……no record of positive results!!!

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Need the source
Date:	4/23/2022 6:31:38 PM

No mention of rates of vaxxed v unvaxxed which is critical to understanding the numbers.  Unvaxxed could be higher due to more of them and likewise in the latter stages vaxxed could be higher due to more fully vaxxed.  Also need to know if vaxxed means vaxxed and boosted or just the original.  Many questions about this table that can probably be answered with sourcing. 

Am not surprised about the lower death rate as that has been the one feature of the gene therapies that has been fairly well documented.  

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Need the source
Date:	4/23/2022 8:02:39 PM

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e2.htm

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting and why you should read the paper
Date:	4/25/2022 9:57:53 AM (updated 4/25/2022 10:01:39 AM)

Couple of observations. 

First, the title of the chart mentions "25 U.S. jurisdictions" which is kind of funny since the text refers to 25 state and local health departments.  There are a total of 50 state and 2,800 local health departments.  So they gathered data from 0.9% of them for this study.  Not exactly a robust sample size but they indicated that these health departments collected the data they believed they needed for the study.  But the data set did include a decent proportion of the population which is helpful.

Second, one of the most glaring limitations of the study was the following, which I quote. "Second, this ecological study lacked multivariable adjustments, and causality could not be determined. Possible differences in testing, infection-derived immunity, waning of vaccine-derived immunity, or prevention behaviors by age and vaccination status might partly explain differences in rates between groups; trends are likely affected by temporal changes in testing or reporting."  This essentially calls into question the entire study as multivariable adjustments to those of us in the world of science are critical to determination of causation.  Without this analysis, which they inexplicably did not do, renders their conclusion speculative at best.....you know the old saw...correlation is not causation.

Third, the majority of the benefit was with adults over age 60 and especially those over age 60 and boosted.  This is something I have been saying from the outset, if you are older and have two or more comorbidities then my view is the experimental gene therapies are probably worth the risks as we know them today.  Over the long run as we learn more about the risks that could certainly change.

Fourth, because of the gap in reporting they were unable to conclude anything about the Omicron variant which is dominant right now.  If you look at the numbers for Omicron they are very similar between vaxxed and unvaxxed, but you can't conclude anything because I suspect the percentage of fully vaxxed during Omicron was higher than the earlier versions so even though about the same, it could demonstrate that the vaccines are helpful in preventing infection and death from that variant.  Would need more study.

So my conclusion about this study is that depsite its flaws there may be a benefit from the vaccines in preventing infection and death but this study doesn't get us to a definitive answer because of the glaring limitation of multivariable analysis.  What is obvious is that there is a very good reason they changed the definition of vaccine for these gene therapies because while they may reduce the IRR they are woefully inadequate in comparison to real vaccines in reducing/eliminating the risk of infection.  Hopefully further studies are conducted to determine if in fact there is a correlation with IRR that reaches the threshold of causation.  As of today the question is still an open one......so no Virginia, this study does not demonstrate that they work.....but does demonstrate that they may be helpful, especially for the elderly.

Name:	au67 -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting and why you should read the paper
Date:	4/25/2022 2:36:32 PM (updated 4/25/2022 2:37:13 PM)

Does all CDC data have the disclaimer you mentioned above?  If so, what public service is served other than trying to arrive at a predisposed political narrative.  The CDC has lost all credibility.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Interesting and why you should read the paper
Date:	4/25/2022 2:55:37 PM (updated 4/25/2022 2:56:34 PM)

The quote I included came directly from the CDC paper that Goofy cherry picked the table from, most likely without actually reading the paper and understanding the significance of the limitation section.  That second limitation is a whopper and undermines the entire paper. 

Multivariability analysis is Stats 101 stuff when it comes to correlation and causation.  You have to examine and eliminate all the other variables that could impact the data in order to come to a reasonable causation conclusion.  Otherwise you are committing scientific malfeasance.  That's what bothers me about the paper.  They come to a conclusion that the vaccines work but admit they never looked at other potential causation factors, try to quantify them and then be left with the data that only addresses vaxxed versus unvaxxed.  It is entirely possible and maybe probable that had the eliminated all the other variables that the difference between vaxxed and unvaxxed with regard to IRR or mortality may not in fact be statistically different.  We don't know for sure because they never did that......which is probably why a study released in January has had so little press.  It is fraught with problems in methodology and is really nothing more than a data dump with some rudimentary analysis.

I don't know whether the gene therapies provide statistically significant protection against infection.  I do believe based on studies I have seen that it does provide some level of protection against hospitalization and mortality which is reason enough for the vulnerable to get them at risk of adverse side effects.  For everyone else not so much.....yet.  But for sure it is papers like this that harm the credibility of the CDC as a science-based organization.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Sure didn't work for Kamala
Date:	4/27/2022 3:33:04 PM

She is fully vaxxed, double boosted and supposedly still got Covid.......great product there.  Of course I would be remiss in not pointing out that the test was probably a false positive because she claimed to have no symptoms.  But despite allegedly having no symptoms she is taking the Pfizer Ivermectin knock off wonder drug.  Not sure what to believe......actually I am sure.....I believe none of what I hear and only half of what I see from this crowd of maroons.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Sure didn't work for Kamala
Date:	4/27/2022 5:52:06 PM (updated 4/27/2022 5:55:13 PM)

That is disappointing  that the new Pfizer drug is simply a knockoff off of Ivermectin.  That is no different than simply being the generic durg for Ivermectin. What reliable source did you read to reach the conclusion that it is a knockoff?

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Asked and answered a long time ago
Date:	4/28/2022 8:20:30 AM (updated 4/28/2022 8:42:29 AM)

Goofy, I suggest you look at the literature about what this new drug does compared to what Ivermectin does......hint, both are ionophores that inhibit viral replication in the cell using different methods.  The language that describes how this "wonder drug" works is exactly the same language used to describe what Ivermectin does.......but at 10 times the cost and profit for Pfizer.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Asked and answered a long time ago
Date:	4/28/2022 8:34:27 AM

It makes sense - its a "HoRsE DrUg" - apparently it works on horse faced hyneas ho's too.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	Asked and answered a long time ago....NOT REALLY
Date:	4/28/2022 3:29:20 PM

Why hasn't there been any legitimate study that has proven the merits of treating COVID-19 with Ivermectin? If such a study existed the would be no need for the Pfizer drug. Pfizer doen't earn money from Ivermectin.

You insist in posting fake facts to suit your ill advised theory.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	YES REALLY
Date:	4/28/2022 3:46:06 PM (updated 4/28/2022 3:56:00 PM)

See the attached screenshot of a pdf which summarizes the research on the effectiveness of Ivermectin.  Note that it has a reference list of over 80 papers that the summary study was based on (last page below).  You can find this paper on the Frontline Doctors website.  This falls into the same category as your belief there is zero evidence of widespread fraud in 2020.  You may need to widen your news sources.....or not, and stay in ignorance. 

You are correct about one thing, Ivermectin is a Merck product so I will revise my statement to Pfizer making 10 times more for their product over what Merck makes on Ivermectin or put more accurately, the consumer pays 10x for the same result.  That both do the exact same thing......prevent viral replication in cells...... is 100% accurate. 

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	YES REALLY
Date:	4/28/2022 4:20:16 PM (updated 4/28/2022 4:21:27 PM)

Oh no facts and logic.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	Asked and answered a long time ago..Yes Really!
Date:	4/28/2022 4:29:21 PM (updated 4/28/2022 4:29:40 PM)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/

Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines

Conclusions:

Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.

Meta-analysis of 15 trials, assessing 2438 participants, found that ivermectin reduced the risk of death by an average of 62% (95% CI 27%–81%) compared with no ivermectin treatment [average RR (aRR) 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.73; I2 = 49%]; risk of death 2.3% versus 7.8% among hospitalized patients in this analysis, respectively

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	YES REALLY
Date:	4/28/2022 4:52:30 PM

You would think by now after having been humiliated dozens of times that Goofy wouldn't come back for more.  I swear he must enjoy it which is more than a little disconcerting.  I can't decide whether he is impervious to humiliation or actually gets some sort of endorphin rush when it happens.  No one can be that clueless can they?!?!?   Reminds me of the old line, "Beat me, beat me", said the masochist....."No!" said the sadist.

Name:	phil -	Reply
Subject:	YES REALLY
Date:	4/28/2022 5:05:23 PM

I agree with everything except the use of dozens - well I guess dozens of dozens still counts as a plural of dozens.  I would think hundreds would be more appropriate but I am sure he would ask for a literal counting of times he was taken to the wood shed.

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	YES REALLY
Date:	4/28/2022 9:26:49 PM

Simply a foolish group that appeals to people  like you who need conspiracies to justify their right wing thought process. And yes Virginia, there was no fraud except for the right wing lies.

"Since its founding last year by Dr. Simone Gold, a Los Angeles physician who was later arrested during the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, America’s Frontline Doctors has nurtured medical conspiracies popular in right-wing circles. Created as a political project to support the Trump Administration’s economic reopening push, it ricocheted from promoting skepticism about COVID-19 to launching a national RV tour to denounce “medical censorship and cancel culture.” It promoted hydroxychloroquine as a miracle drug and billed itself as a provider of legal services for people who refuse to be vaccinated or to wear a mask, or who want to stop vaccinations for children. "

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	YES REALLY
Date:	4/28/2022 10:26:41 PM

You quoted a source without attribution.  What is that source?

Name:	GoneFishin -	Reply
Subject:	YES REALLY
Date:	4/28/2022 11:42:13 PM

 Copy and past it....I can't get the link to work.

                  https://time.com/6092368/americas-frontline-doctors-covid-19-misinformation/

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	YES REALLY
Date:	4/29/2022 10:18:19 AM

84 cited sources Goofy.  That is called science.  Watching Fauci flip flop on masks, vaccines, whether the pandemic is over or not, etc. is politics.  I'll take science over politics any day. 

Foolish is a term I would use to describe someone that believes so much that just isn't true and doubles down when confronted with overwhelming evidence contrary to what you wish to be true.  Goofy......seek help.....being in a state of delusional denail is no way to live.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	YES REALLY
Date:	4/29/2022 10:19:49 AM

Here's a question for you......had you ever heard of this person?  I know I have not.  And yet she is allegedly behind a grand conspiracy.  Goofy is quite literally a moron when it comes to these things.