This article by Bob caused me to belly-up with a subscription. I've always admired his clarity of thought and balance. This is a great example. It is easy to be suspicious of Big Pharma. There are lots of examples of shoddy research and poor process we can point to. I'm personally fond of Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. That said, Bob's points with respect to Malone's motivations resonate strongly. Real wisdom IMHO. I listened to the entire (!) podcast with Rogan and Malone and it really helped me appreciate how people can buy in to Malone's narrative, but the statement's Bob points out couldn't be overlooked and damaged his credibility with me. Lot's of claims of multitudes of studies that supported his viewpoints as well as credible third parties, but they don't seem to exist when you drill down. I really appreciate Bob's humility and ability to give someone I could easily dismiss the benefit of the doubt that comes with recognizing our common, human biases and failings. Bravo, Bob!
There are strong parallels here to the few (but non-zero) climate change contrarians who are experts, such as Richard Lindzen at MIT. Lindzen is a brilliant scientist who has made major contributions to understanding the climate system yet has repeatedly and publicly downplayed the risks of climate change. He also doesn't believe that smoking causes cancer. There is a conspiratorial aspect to his thinking, in particular he points to group-think among climate scientists, and confirmation bias is also at work in the worry that climate change will prompt greater government control over our lives.
The patterns in right-wing conspiracism are usually:
1. Paranoia/anxiety about some type of impending martial law or crackdown (like "Biden National Lockdown Coming in Next 10 Days"). People like to make fun of this, but the anxiety conspiracy believers have is real to them. Usually, it supposedly didn't happen this time because the elites fear popular revolt.
2. Unelected government officials are conspiring to use an actual, imagined, or manufactured crisis to take away rights and freedoms.
You need to use that as an "interpretive lens" when thinking about, for example, exactly why the claims about gain-of-function research are so important. It's not just questioning whether mainstream science is influenced by confirmation bias, it's that conspiracist arguments can seem extremely compelling to people who assume (1) and (2) are true as their "analytical lens." It also explains why your buddies at the CIA didn't take your emails seriously.
I think this "lens" explains how someone like Malone or Bret Weinstein can move from distrust of other researchers to conspiracism without completely losing touch with reality or rationality like the QAnon people have.
Look no further than the amazing Linus Pauling. His vitamin C claims were thoroughly debunked during his lifetime, and he called it all a conspiracy. Absolute brilliance can lead to absolute certainty, despite the evidence.
I side with Malone over Wright on this. For me, it boils down to credibility, starting with the lab leak. The lab leak is so obviously true in my view that anyone who fails to see it is not credible, and that's how I see Wright on this issue. It's very risky to go against the big pharma blob, so Bob evades the subject.
On top of this, the authorities were wrong about how the virus is transmitted, and their vaccine and only vaccine approach to prevention and treatment has proven a disaster, as predicted by Bret Weinstein and Malone.
The conventional wisdom, led by those at WHO and CDC and propagated by the mainstream media, has been politicized and horribly wrong -- far outshining any of Malone's inconsistencies. Then there's the censorship. Rand Paul was suspended from YouTube for correctly pointing out that cloth masks don't work. Facebook was telling people that the lab leak was false and grounds for suspension. The Lancet published a letter by Peter Daszak saying that the lab leak was a conspiracy theory. Talk about conflict of interest!!!! These outrageous incidents have one thousand times the conflict of interest that Robert imagines within Malone's mind.
I do agree with Robert that Malone is inconsistent in how many lives would have been saved with effective treatment. Good catch! And many of Malone's other observations can be legitimately questioned. But the overwhelming failure here is that of the authorities who are 1) Responsible for creating the virus; 2) Responsible for failing to encourage open discussion and experimentation with various treatments; 3) Politicizing the virus.
So let's talk about the facts and not about who's crazy. I'm with Rogan and Malone more than Wright and Fauci, but the important thing is to stay constructive. For me that means starting with the big picture and what is most important. If Wright disagrees with any of my three points (lab leak origin, treatment options, politicization), then he can argue those points.
Biases and motives are important, as Bob points out in separate posts with which I very much agree. But they are most important in examining our own behavior. In judging others' behavior, we generally have to argue the facts. The facts can include such factors as conflicts of interest. That Malone has no obvious conflicts of interest, unlike the big pharma blob, is of huge import. That Malone may be jealous is not really solid, in my humble opinion.
Good points. The speculation about Malone's personal motives is interesting, but it seems to be functioning as a distraction from his concerns that are shared by other credentialed professionals in relevant fields who aren't as controversial and don't have Malone's backstory. There has been a common theme throughout the pandemic of inconsistencies and wrong information being called out, scrutinized or censored if it might interfere with vaccine acceptance, but given a pass or ignored as long as it encourages or doesn't interfere with the vaccine rollout.
I like your description "big pharma blob" and I agree tech could've had a lighter touch with some of what they banned. and yes I agree with you that the lab leak makes the most sense.... but I also think malone is totally out to lunch. so I don't think those two beliefs are mutually exclusive.
also i'm not sure where you get the idea that the authorities have taken a "vaccine and vaccine only approach to prevention and treatment"? on the treatment side, hospitalized patients can be given any combination of: monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, anti-inflammatories like tocilizumab and baricitinib, and the steroid dexamehtasone.
on the prevention side, the medical authorities have been pretty consistent from the start: avoid indoor public spaces, avoid large gatherings, get tested if you feel bad and stay at home if you do and yes wear a mask. but vaccines save lives and do an excellent job at keeping people from being hospitalized. so pushing them was/and is obviously the smartest and most moral choice.
lastly politicization of covid? absolutely! the evidence is as clear as day it was (and is) of course the republicans with trump leading the charge. there is a lot of deep dive reporting on how Trump's own medical team was dumbfounded and ultimately thwarted because of the former prez's inane and stupifying responses the covid pandemic.
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I don't have much time as I have a lunch date, but your questions deserve responses however incomplete.
1. Regarding "vaccine and vaccine only", you make some good points. My thinking is that doctors around the world have reported good success with a number of early treatments including ivermectin and colchicine. Why discourage such treatments, or falsely claim the drugs to be dangerous?
3. I don't think Trump was leading the politicization. He was, as always, an a**, but many Dems seem to think that anything Trump says must be false and therefore the opposite of what Trump says must be true. Thus, the lab leak, the hydroxychloroquine nonsense, etc.
Anyway, I appreciate the thoughtful comments. Much to digest.
"much to digest" ha. indeed with food & thought. but yes, i see no reason why ivermectin can't be given to people who want it in the hospital. the prohibition seems a bit much. but even with that and the missteps along the way with messaging - as u point out- these should be expected from people working with good intentions. because they are people! and as bob's post points out, humans are fallible!
what the medical and govt authorities have tried to do isn't easy. they'll get some things wrong - and a mutating virus doesn't help! we got stuff wrong during WW2, we screwed up sending a man to the moon. when you do big things, there will be screw ups. yes, mistake should be pointed out so they get fixed. but instead of good faith criticism, we get conspiratorial bile from rand paul, dr. malone et al.
rand isn't happy to merely make a point about mask effectiveness, instead he rants their use pushed by the govt is "curtailing our most basic liberties, using the COVID-19 pandemic as their excuse.” it's that word "excuse" that's the problem. as if, the govt is looking for a reason to limit liberties?
we've lost the ability to give and take criticism in the country - both the right and left - and it will be our undoing.
It's important to note that *early* treatment which could have kept patients out of the hospital was discouraged. Remdesivir is expensive, toxic, and too late in the game when given to hospitalized patients because viral replication has occurred already. From what I can gather halting viral replication as soon as possible is rather obvious, this is why, for instance, the anti-viral medication for shingles has such a short window of efficacy (I was unlucky enough to miss that window when I had a case).
hi....what kind of early treatment was discouraged and by whom and why? because it sounds like you're hinting at something nefarious? ;) I would say doctors and public health officials are for the most part good people who want to help us humans. compared to say, bankers or hollywood agents. I'm not naive but i'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as long as their working from good intentions.
Melinda was probably referring to ivermectin, hydroxychlorquine, colchicine, etc. There are groups of doctors who have generated early treatment protocols (flccc.net for example), but these people have been discouraged and deplatformed rather than encouraged or engaged with. My impression is that the outsiders have been proven right as time has gone by. Many of the off label drugs work against covid, especially when used in combination. On the other hand, the vaccines have not worked very well and places where few vaccines have been administered are doing as well or better than places that have been saturated with vaccines.
Now as to why. It is no secret that huge profits have been made. It's also probable that some of the most powerful people in the world, including Dr Fauci, stand to lose everything were they to speak the truth. These are very powerful incentives to, as Bob mighI say, deceive oneself as to the best approach.
Overall, however, I agree 100% with your approach to give people the benefit of the doubt and be patient with one another. It's a frightening and confusing situation and mistakes are inevitable even when people are trying to do the right thing.
Yes, this is what I was referring to. There have also been many reports of pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and doctors being disciplined for prescribing them. I recently came across just such an example in my own state, where a doctor who has been practicing for 41 years has had her license temporarily suspended for this. It might be true that doctors are generally good people but it seems they are under scrutiny from the people who can fire them, and not everyone is willing to go against the grain.
yes i'm well aware of FLCCC. most of their treatment protocol rests on the supposed efficacy of ivermectin which the jury is still out on.
but I don't know where you're getting the idea "vaccines haven't worked very well"? they have worked extremely well. statistics from all over the world prove this. and no, places without vaccines aren't doing better. they're doing much worse. developing nations are begging for vaccines. the west's failure to share them is a crime.
profits are surely to be made from vaccines but this fact doesn't prove the whole vaccine enterprise is necessarily corrupt? vaccines are saving lives and keeping people from hospitals.
fauci indeed has a powerful job but again, this doesn't defacto mean he's corrupt. he's been a govt employee for over 50 years for gods sake! ;) he could've bailed decades ago and secured plushy, lucrative spots on corporate boards, but he didn't. so it's fair to say he isn't motivated by greed. maybe power? sure or maybe he's just motivated by public health and unfortunately been swept up in a tidal wave of cynicism and conspiracy?
yes a bit of cynicism is certainly justified these days, but blanket cynicism just snuffs out the ones actually trying to do some good :)
New big data study of 145 countries show COVID vaccines makes things worse (cases and deaths)
A new study by Kyle A. Beattie entitled “Worldwide Bayesian Causal Impact Analysis of Vaccine Administration on Deaths and Cases Associated with COVID-19: A Big Data Analysis of 145 Countries” concluded that vaccines are doing the opposite of what they were promised to do.
This is hardly the first study to reach those conclusions. These studies, all done independently, found the same thing—the more you vaccinate, the worse things get.
The Lyons-Weiler paper
The Harvard study
The German study
The Denmark study (which shows Dr. James was right; you have to boost every 30 days to maintain protection.
German government data (this is from The Expose)
80% of the COVID deaths in the UK are vaccinated
Lancet: 89% Of New UK COVID Cases Among Fully Vaxxed
So it's not clear to me. I've come to distrust the mainstream reporting on this. I've seen first hand how they ignore studies (such as FLCCC reports) that don't fit the big pharma narrative. And Fauci seems to be their man.
I could be wrong, but that's what I believe. Or, rather, that's what I don't believe (WHO, CDC, Fauci, NY Times, ...).
Power and ego can do a lot of damage. Fauci has a history of promoting and defending failed new therapeutics and vaccines, and the NIAID is heavily loaded with pharmaceutical interests. He doesn't seem to be motivated by public health at all, though I think he has over the years secured an image as someone who does. At the beginning of the pandemic I thought the fact that he had been in office forever counted for something, institutional knowledge and all that, but once his role in gain-of-function research came out it all started unraveling. He is not a force for good.
Thanks for the reporting on RM over the last weeks (inasmuch as this is almost the length of a Glenn Greenwald column, I still hope that Mickey reads it).,
Good piece. A plausible assessment of Malone's personal motives and world view which appears to be quite right wing.
A few things struck me. He says he had an ongoing relationship with senior people at the agencies that he sent the Chinese protocol to. So perhaps he is justified in being surprised at finding himself unusually ignored on such a vital point during a crisis - in the exact area of expertese on which they had been used to consult him? He wasn't just some random guy firing off a few emails that wouldn't be noticed. He does have long and significant experience in the field whatever may be true about the invention of mRNA vaccines. He is quite open about his involvement, in fact, and says that he put a lot of effort into making a SAFE vaccine and could not - which is why he is unconvinced and worried by the claim that these Covid vaccnines are safe. No corona vaccine has ever succeeded - and neither have these ones.
He is clear too that he has no professional conflict of interest and that he is acting, at this very late stage in his career with no expectation of reward of any kind, but out of concern for what is happening. That doesn't quite come through in your assessment. My understanding of what both he and Dr Peter McCullough have said on Joe Rogan is that neither Ivermectin nor Hydroxy on their own is enough but that administered as part of 'kitchen sink' protocols that include several other treatments (vitamin D and Zinc e.g.) they are proven highly effective - by many doctors in many regions of the world at this stage. They have both been very clear on that point - and also that any protocol needs to be administered as early as possible after contracting the virus. Some of the worst symptoms occur after the virus has passed on so catching it early is important. That people shoud not simply wait around at home to see whether or not they are going to get a bad dose, which - weirdly - is what the official position has been. The focus has solely been on vaccines. Extremely peculiar.
There is also the matter that Ivermectin and Hydroxy have been falsely and widely vilified as unsafe and untested. It's completely untrue - they are well-established, safe and cheap medications, whatever their merits in this context. So there is that lie to be addressed too - and the outrageous 'trials' that were set up to disprove their safety but which had to be withdrawn when the facts emerged. The other side of this - and you mention it more or less in passing - it's an extremely unheathy situation that commercial entities like Pfizer and Moderna who are making billions out of this crisis are being treated as disinterested parties. They are quoted religiously by the media as if there were no conflict of interest when in fact there is a colossal one.
Vaccines that they were so sure were 96% effective just months ago are now openly admitted to be of little or no use, according to the head of Pfizer himself, Bourla. We may need to give you a new one every four months, he says. Ker-ching! (Anybody got any concerns, at all, about the health impact of repeated vaccine interventions?) In whose commercial interests is it that vaccines shoud be mandated - especially when those same companies have been indemnified against prosecution for side effects? When they have not yet even completed trials to '23. When Pfizer have sought to have the trial data sealed for 75 years?
A further wrinkle is whether these 'vaccines' are in fact vaccines at all. Whether they are in fact a form of gene treatment. The head of Bayer has said they are the latter and that the pharmaceutical companies have been overjoyed by this opportunity to test them out - a scenario he said that not even one year previously could they have even dreamed of hoping for. So there's that too.
And why must a treatment that prevents neither infection nor transmission be mandated? Why is any sane democrat not vehemently opposed to QR coded 'vaccine passes'? Have we learned nothing about how prone our governments are to illegal data use and abuse? The World Bank has declared itself delighted by the opportunity the epidemic has created for moving us towards a fully digital world. Do we actually want that? What did Snowden show us? It may well be that the response to the pandemic has been crude and authoritarian rather than pre-meditated conspiracy. But Malone and McCullough are not wrong in one regard at least, that too much has been taken at face value about decisions that have affected the whole world. That the concerns of thousands of highly qualified and experienced doctors have been shouted down if not completely ignored by credulous media who want to believe in a reassuring narrative, that Daddy and The Doctor know what is best. Fauci makes himself out to be irreproachable, infallible science personified. Whille there are thusands of well-meaning men and women working in good faith at pharmaceutical companies, is there another context in which the word of giant corproations would be given such an uncritical, unquestioning reception? Particularly when they have already have a dubious track record in the courts? If we are going to take aim at Malone and people like him, we absolutely must take a much colder and closer look at the new orthodoxism equally and urgently. Established media are failing dismally in this regard.
I'm not sure what you mean when say these vaccines haven't succeeded. It's pretty clear that you're much more likely to die of Covid--whether Delta or Omicron--if you're vaxed than if you're not, right? Do you just mean the vaccines haven't ended the pandemic?
The vaccines have clearly not succeeded in preventing infection or transmission of covid which is still rampant among the vaxed. As to whether they are more effective than any number of other treatments which have been discouraged is unknown, in my opinion. The vaccines may well have done more harm than good among young people. Who knows to what extent the vaccines have impacted the evolution of the pandemic? Malone makes a good point that you have not addressed regarding vaccine safety and the VAERS database. Just because the VAERS database is not considered useful by the government Pharma Blob, it's all we have regarding vaccine adverse effects post mass deployment.
Now I agree that the vaccines probably reduce the severity of the disease once contracted. But I'm not sure how big an effect this is considering the fact that covid is much more deadly amongst the old, obese, and others with comorbidities. Most people would recover from covid without the vaccines and have better immunity.
The whole thing has been horribly politicized and "big science" has been discredited. Random Control Trials are not the be all and end all of medicine and science in general, as pointed by Bret Weinstein and acknowledged widely. Observation and anecdote are important precursors to the development and testing of effective hypotheses. Not all RCT experiments are unbiased as much depends upon the design of the study (doses given, combinations of drugs in play, factors and parasitic worms in the environment, etc.).
I'm vaxed and boostered and am glad I am, but don't think the science is by any means settled on a number of these issues. By the way, I'm not sure if you've seen this article from 2016 which describes how big pharma was on shaky footing with regard to vaccine safety pre-covid -- <a href="https://www.psandman.com/col/dishonesty.htm">U.S. Public Health Professionals Routinely Mislead the Public about Infectious Diseases: True or False? Dishonest or Self-Deceptive? Harmful or Benign?</a>. (This is not at all about autism.)
Love your stuff and most of your conversations with Mickey.
The VAERS database, which is self-reported and therefore not rigorous (though still useful) is not by any means all we have. For example, there is the V-Safe system that allows people to report side effects, or lack of them, soon after vaccination. There is also a registry for women to report changes in their cycles, and one for pregnant women, though I can't remember just now where one finds those.
The CDC is being sued to release the V-Safe data. You would think that if V-Safe is a more rigorous collection system and has data that contradicts the alarming number of adverse events reported to VAERS, or at least puts it in context, that they would release it.
It's an anti-vax group suing, and apparently CDC is saying that the data needs to be de-identified first. I haven't been able to find much detail on this lawsuit.
(This is just an example of the use of such databases.)
I used v-safe myself after my booster in November. If you sign up for it, you get messages on your phone asking you to report how you're doing.
Both v-safe and VAERS rely on self-reporting of symptoms, so to the best of my knowledge the reports of side effects or lack of side effects are subjective and rely on the person doing the reporting being accurate, which is what I meant by "not rigorous." I know I was accurate when I gave my own report.
Perhaps it sounded like I was implying that v-safe was more reliable than VAERS, but that's not what I intended, and I did say in my original comment that v-safe data is also self-reported. My point was that we have other data besides what is in VAERS.
The identity of the group behind the lawsuit is less significant to me (especially since the term 'anti-vax' gets applied too liberally these days to mean much) than the fact that the CDC is not releasing the data. According to one of their own documents the data given to Oracle is already de-identified: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/V-safe-Protocol-508.pdf, so their de-identification rationale for non-release doesn't make sense.
I mean that they don't function as typical vaccines- they neither prevent infection nor transmission. They don't sterilise the virus. They appear to reduce severity of illness for many which means they may be an effective treatment for some/most. That needs to be weighed against mounting evidence of pretty serious side effects for a significant minority. A serious risk is being taken with children and younger adults who were barely at risk at all from the virus itself.
They prevented infection by the early variants of the virus (I don't mean by 100 percent, but like 80-90 percent, which is big). Then less with Delta and barely at all with Omicron. But even with Omicron they reduce chances of death very significantly. All told, I think they've worked well enough that the downside risks would have to be big--much bigger than anything I've seen good evidence of--for the vaccines to not be on balance a very good thing.
Yes, but with a booster the effectiveness against omicron is largely restored. The vaccines have worked exceedingly well. Remember that other typical vaccines, such as the ones for flu, also work only up to a certain percentage. "Typical vaccines" don't 100% prevent either infection or transmission, they just reduce the likelihood. There is no such thing as a vaccine to "sterilise" the virus-- which isn't even a meaningful term.
"Booster shots with messenger RNA vaccines such as those made by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE failed to block Omicron in a study of some of the first documented breakthrough cases caused by the highly contagious variant."
So I don't think the evidence is as clear as you imply.
There's a lot more to the article you cited. Actually, the article points out that boosters have shown quite a bit of effectiveness against omicron. The title is misleading.
'All the cases were mild or moderate, providing support for the extra shots’ ability to fend off severe disease, death and hospitalizations.'
'...The shots appear to generate protection against Omicron with other parts of the immune system in addition to antibodies, such as T-cells, and so far hospital and mortality data have been less severe than with the Delta variant that dominated earlier.'
'...Strong responses from T-cells were detected in the subjects, the researchers said. “The mild to moderate course of illness suggests that full vaccination followed by a booster dose still provides good protection against severe disease caused by Omicron,” they said.'
'Block' is not a very meaningful term in this context. Apparently the author meant that the boosters do not absolutely prevent infection with omicron-- but we didn't expect that they would. They didn't absolutely prevent every infection with earlier variants, either, and omicron is more transmissible by far than anything seen previously.
While the first two shots of mRNA vaccines show relatively little efficacy against omicron, every piece of evidence I've seen says that a booster brings a vaccinated person's immunity to omicron up close to where it was with delta. I'm not saying this on the basis of "a quick Google," but after reading every study I could find and meeting with infectious disease and public health experts from around my state for weekly updates for nearly two years.
Here's a nice crunchy article on a mechanism which can explain why boosters help:
"Omicron’s Message on Vaccines: Boosting Begets Breadth"
'In this issue of Cell, three studies confirm that SARS-CoV-2 Omicron strongly evades a key immune defense—neutralizing antibodies. However, while one- or two-dose vaccine regimens fail to induce anti-Omicron neutralizing antibodies, a homologous 3rd-dose booster rescues neutralization function in a way that highlights the adaptability of immune memory, where recalled immune memory extends antibody reach across-SARS-CoV-2 variants.'
'Rescues neutralization function' is a more technical way of saying 'effectiveness is largely restored.'
I hope that helps clarify. I'm outta here-- got to get the office ready for tomorrow's patients.
I really have to wonder if you've seen how many younger adults have been hospitalized and killed by this disease, especially in recent months. The numbers are fewer with kids, but they are by no means insignificant. You see vaccines as carrying more serious risks than the disease, but that is incorrect. For example, COVID itself causes myocarditis far more often than the vaccines do. (I'm not adding a link, as this is easy to look up.)
I have a couple of patients who have had so many severe reactions to various substances that vaccines appear to have an unacceptable degree of risk-- or rather, more risk than those individuals feel willing to accept-- but only a couple of them. I can understand that in individual cases the risk/benefit ratio may tilt in favor of avoiding vaccination, but after over a year of closely observing experiences with vaccines around the world, I can't see it as being true on a population level.
We can breathe a little bit easier (sounds like a bad pun, sorry) with the growing evidence that omicron is less likely to cause really severe disease, even while our society is being battered by the sheer number of sick people. However, the more people are unvaccinated, and the more catch the virus, the more opportunities it has to mutate into variants that could be far worse. That is a potential serious risk to children and younger adults along with everyone else.
"I mean that they don't function as typical vaccines- they neither prevent infection nor transmission. They don't sterilise the virus."
Vaccines don't "sterilise" viruses (or other pathogens), they trigger immune responses in the body that protect against future infections of a virus. Commonly vaccines work by leading to the production of immune components (antibody proteins) in the body that latch onto a virus and thereby mark it for destruction by immune cells. They cannot prevent infection or even some transmission--what they can prevent is for a virus to propagate to high enough levels in the body to cause serious disease in the vaccinated person.
And vaccines typically are never 100% effective for a variety of reasons--for instance, a virus may mutate (as in the case of omikron) and thereby elude immune responses triggered by a previous vaccination, and individuals differ often markedly in the strength and duration of immune responses.
Myriad factors are at play that determine how effective a vaccine is--in that sense, there's no "typical" vaccine. And in the case of COVID-19, a strategy of vaccination coupled with means that reduce person-to-person transmission (like masks, physical distancing, and paid sick leave) would have likely been very successful--alas both vaccination campaigns and policies and efforts for reducing transmission were thwarted at every turn, resulting in a horrendously tragic outcome.
Absolutely. One is far more likely to get significantly sick or die if one is unvaccinated. We have a year of experience to show this. I can't believe it's even an argument anymore. The fact that it still is illustrates the points in your post, about having reasons to believe what one wants to believe, even when it makes no sense.
I don't know. More people have died since we started getting vaccines, in spite of the fact that the weakest were most likely to go first, and that many people had natural immunity by the time the vaccines were rolled out. Not to mention that countries without vaccines have done just fine. But I'm open-minded if you have evidence (links) to support your point. Best!
More people have died because more time has gone by, the virus has had more opportunity over time to penetrate into populations, and the more transmissible and severe delta variant developed.
I have no idea what you mean by "countries without vaccines have done just fine." Please specify which countries and in which ways they have done fine. That's quite the opposite of anything I've seen.
At this point, stating that one is more likely to get significantly sick or die of COVID if one is unvaccinated is pretty much like saying water is wet or the sky is blue. The information is everywhere-- but you may not be bumping into it. I understand that not everyone does direct patient care like I do, or spends time with university infectious disease departments or marinates in epidemiology and virology information for fun like I do. You probably have plenty of other things to occupy your time and are not constantly poring over public health statistics.
So here's one quick link on the latest from New Mexico:
I wish I could directly post the chart from the article here. It says that of the patients hospitalized, 82.9% are unvaccinated, and of those who have died, 89.1% are unvaccinated. Those numbers are very typical of what we're seeing in recent times.
"More people have died because more time has gone by"
Actually, the vaccines started to be rolled out about year ago, and the virus had already been around for about a year at that time.
"I have no idea what you mean by "countries without vaccines have done just fine." Please specify which countries and in which ways they have done fine. That's quite the opposite of anything I've seen."
The United States has the 19th highest death rate out of 224 countries, despite having a high vaccination rate (63% fully vaccinated). India has the 130th highest death rate, despite having only 48% of its people vaccinated. Russia has the 32nd highest death rate despite having only 47% of its population vaccinated. The Philippines has the 122nd highest death rate withonly 57% of the population vaccinated. I could go on and on cherry picking the data, but better to look at the big data studies such as this one: https://vector-news.github.io/editorials/CausalAnalysisReport_html.html
The findings: There has been a higher death rate where the vaccine has been administered at a higher rate.
That's enough for one post. I look forward to continuing the conversation!
I'm looking at the article you referenced from New Mexico. I agree that it indicates the vaccine is effective in preventing death, but it seems the effect is short lived.
"The omicron variant is currently ripping through New Mexico at rates not previously seen in the pandemic. The state has been reporting between 4,000 and more than 5,500 cases per day for more than a week. On Wednesday, the state reported 5,735 new cases – a single-day record.
That’s about twice as many cases as the state was reporting during the virus’s peak in late 2020, before vaccines were widely available."
Anyway, thanks for the reference and sharing that you personally treat patients.
There is also the matter that Ivermectin and Hydroxy have been falsely and widely vilified as unsafe and untested. It's completely untrue - they are well-established, safe and cheap medications, whatever their merits in this context. So there is that lie to be addressed too - and the outrageous 'trials' that were set up to disprove their safety but which had to be withdrawn when the facts emerged. The other side of this - and you mention it more or less in passing - it's an extremely unheathy situation that commercial entities like Pfizer and Moderna who are making billions out of this crisis are being treated as disinterested parties. They are quoted religiously by the media as if there were no conflict of interest when in fact there is a colossal one.
Vaccines that they were so sure were 96% effective just months ago are now openly admitted to be of little or no use, according to the head of Pfizer himself, Bourla. We may need to give you a new one every four months, he says. Ker-ching! (Anybody got any concerns, at all, about the health impact of repeated vaccine interventions?) In whose commercial interests is it that vaccines shoud be mandated - especially when those same companies have been indemnified against prosecution for side effects? When they have not yet even completed trials to '23. When Pfizer have sought to have the trial data sealed for 75 years?
A further wrinkle is whether these 'vaccines' are in fact vaccines at all. Whether they are in fact a form of gene treatment. The head of Bayer has said they are the latter and that the pharmaceutical companies have been overjoyed by this opportunity to test them out - a scenario he said that not even one year previously could they have even dreamed of hoping for. So there's that too.
And why must a treatment that prevents neither infection nor transmission be mandated? Why is any sane democrat not vehemently opposed to QR coded 'vaccine passes'? Have we learned nothing about how prone our governments are to illegal data use and abuse? The World Bank has declared itself delighted by the opportunity the epidemic has created for moving us towards a fully digital world. Do we actually want that? What did Snowden show us? It may well be that the response to the pandemic has been crude and authoritarian rather than pre-meditated conspiracy. But Malone and McCullough are not wrong in one regard at least, that too much has been taken at face value about decisions that have affected the whole world. That the concerns of thousands of highly qualified and experienced doctors have been shouted down if not completely ignored by credulous media who want to believe in a reassuring narrative, that Daddy and The Doctor know what is best. Fauci makes himself out to be irreproachable, infallible science personified. Whille there are thusands of well-meaning men and women working in good faith at pharmaceutical companies, is there another context in which the word of giant corproations would be given such an uncritical, unquestioning reception? Particularly when they have already have a dubious track record in the courts? If we are going to take aim at Malone and people like him, we absolutely must take a much colder and closer look at the new orthodoxism equally and urgently. Established media are failing dismally in this regard.
Hi all, I just got back from an ICU visit (COVID related & a wedding, which is why I'm late to this post. I did watch the whole Rogan/Malone podcast weeks ago. I tend to use my own experience when assessing things and people (as well as published data). Nonzero makes good points regarding 'human nature' & human motivations (self-preservation, status, etc.) driving their agendas.
On the US death stats. On average 3 million people die each year in the US. Most all deaths 'from' COVID occur among old and sick people - people's whose time was about up. We won't know the true effect of COVID for years - meaning did the people who died 'from' COVID increase that total of 3m, to say 3.5m? in years 2020-22? Or does the 3m average hold up?
I've stated this earlier - my brother got COVID in Dec. 2020, was in ICU for 50 days! He's been on oxygen ever since, but 'home'. His wife got it, too. Same time, same strain. No symptoms.
He just collapsed on Jan, 13, 2022 and was unresponsive and put on 'the machine'. The doctors told us when they take him off - he could die within hours, days at most. So far, 12 days later, they're wrong. He's doing well, so far. His lungs are severely damaged, really, really, bad. Hospice has taken over. And they found that the treatment and oxygen supplying machines were WRONG! And that his biggest threat to breathing is anxiety. So they're trying to treat that. (Won't go into all the details and drama.) This jives with the CDC's own data that 'fear and anxiety disorders' are the 2nd highest risk-increasing factor for bad outcomes.
We are, the US population, not a healthy society - in many ways. All of which contributes to bad outcomes. Fear and anxiety have been exploited to the max - for political and professional gains. Unfortunately, that's human nature, too.
I got the COVID from Santa this last Christmas. I'm okay. Was a little scary for a few days. I'm not on any one's stat sheet. The only doctor I see is a Psychologist. WE 'chat'. She urges me to get vaxed. But me and my rowdy friends? - well ... I told y'all my story earlier.
Long story short - my brother's been sick his whole life. Bad luck? Me, healthy. Hospice is taking good care of him.
Great piece, Bob. I would highly recommend listening to Dr. Peter Attia's Drive podcast. If you aren't familiar, he is an MD with a focus on all things longevity and extending health span. He's a brilliant guy, very data driven, and doesn't really get political. He had two Covid related podcasts over the last few weeks with some well known MD's and a Virologist, exploring all aspects of Covid - Efficacy of the vaccines, policy decisions, natural immunity, the role Tribalism has played in the whole thing, and a thorough debunking of Malone. Well worth your time.
Just hopscotching through this article on the history of mRNA vaccine development (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w), one gets a good sense that the development of mRNA vaccines had a bevy of players involved (as is usually the case in scientific research, which rarely proceeds linearly and predictably and sprawls often across several continents).
The piece mentions Malone at the start, but it becomes clear very quickly that although his contribution was important, it doesn't make him the "inventor of mRNA vaccines" by any stretch of the imagination. Lots of setbacks on the way (mRNA is a tricky molecule to work with--it's very unstable and can itself trigger unwanted immune responses), so a lot of fine-tuning and additional breakthroughs (and coaxing of funding agencies) were required to get this medical modality to where it is today.
My sense is that precisely because there were legions of researchers involved in developing this vaccine technology, it wasn't particularly hard to get one in front of microphones claiming to have made seminal contributions to it and to use that appropriated prestige to offer byzantine narratives about how the "real truth" (e.g., about alternative treatments with worm medicines) is being suppressed by nefarious players. It would make for some modest entertainment if there weren't so many lives at stake.
One worrisome and telling line (a quote from a researcher who studies misinformation) is at the end:
"We're not talking about fringe ideas," she said. "These are the most popular podcasts in the United States."
This goes a long way towards explaining why public health efforts to increase vaccination rates and masking are failing. Without a concerted push to put much tighter reins on podcasting platforms to reduce the spread of misinformation, most explanations and appeals by public health officials will evaporate in the hot air these platforms are generating.
This is a fascinating analysis. It's definitely difficult to say what constitutes "crazy" and what is just "saying ridiculous things to further one's own ends."
I want to emphasize the point that Bob made that monoclonal antibody drug shipments had been curtailed after it was found that they were ineffective against omicron. That is, Biden stopped supplying drugs that DON'T WORK in our present situation and couldn't be used. Oh, what a diabolical plot! Not.
For Malone to insist that somehow this does indicate heinous motivations on Biden's part, in the face of very obvious facts that are so easy for a scientist or medical professional to understand-- that does seem crazy to me. If he believes what he's saying, then at best he is willfully deluding himself. Delusion is considered part of some mental illness conditions, so we could be justified in calling that craziness.
(Whereas Rogan probably just wants money and attention, I suppose.)
The fact that the disease we're dealing with is new and we are all learning as we go along, the famous "building the plane while flying it," has made it all the easier for misinformation to get a foothold. Most people are going to be confused at any moment, including health care professionals like me, so if someone sounds authoritative and convincing their message can get through even if it is crazy.
Speaking of delusion, I'm saddened to see people still pushing ivermectin here. Bob gave a pretty good summary in his end note about why that doesn't make a lot of sense. I've already written extensively about that and related matters on my own blog, so I won't repeat myself here. These folks may be comforted, though, to hear that there is still some research on ivermectin going on, as well as studies of some other common drugs that have shown possible activity against COVID, such as fluvoxamine. They might not be game-changers, but researchers are still chasing down anything that might help. At least that was the case a couple of months ago, an eternity in pandemic time.
(By the way, colchicine is a hard no. It just hasn't been shown to help at all.)
This is old, from back in the day when conspiracy "hypothesists" were so big on HCQ, but the general concepts are still relevant:
Malone certainly sounds a bit crazy to me. People who start claiming to have friends in the secret services often are a bit bonkers and indeed people who work for secret services often become quite paranoid and are themselves nuts. Has anyone noticed that rogan has the same peculiar orange skin colour as ex presidente trump? One can well imagine what bizarre conclusions rogan and malone might draw from some striking similarity in appearance between Biden and someone else they wanted to disparage. .
Bret Weinstein published a paper in 2002 with a discovery about telomeres that he claims he never received appropriate recognition for (thanks to the DISC or Distributed Idea Suppression Complex). Bret claimed his discovery implies that we should be much much more cautious when evaluating the safety of new drugs.
Bret consistently acts like he's a knowledgable expert in fields outside of evolutionary biology like virology, sociology, leftist debates about race and identity, or American politics. He doesn't seriously read works by other people, he just says what he thinks and blames the establishment in scientific academia for not taking him more seriously.
I think this is human nature, especially when you feel like you've made a groundbreaking discovery but people never gave you appropriate credit. There are scientists who really believe smoking doesn't cause cancer who aren't grifters getting paid by tobacco companies.
You see this on the left with extremely marginalized figures like Angela Davis in the 1960s and 1970s. Davis adopted "conspiracy-theory-like" beliefs to justify support for the USSR and the Peoples' Temple. Her support was totally unjustified and caused a great deal of harm because it led to some people taking atrocity reports less seriously when there were viable options to help people other than going to war, like countering prejudice against Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees.
Yes, Bret's another case where the grievance itself may be valid for all I know (I've looked into it a bit), but the grievance seems to have had some bad effects on how he sees the world.
I've had a couple of days to ruminate on this and I think I've spotted a variant of attribution bias. I like Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone and so I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding possibly cranky or crazy behavior. From my situational perspective, they are regularly insulted and censored in public and thus it is not surprising if they are occasionally rude or share an unfiltered thought which seems crazy. From your dispositional perspective, anti-authoritarian behavior and/or anger is part of their personalities, possibly resulting from a retribution impulse stemming from a perceived wrong suffered in the past.
An analogy can be made to your attitude toward the foreign policy establishment. A critic could show dispositional bias due to your resentment toward Jeffrey Goldberg and his tribe. You are cranky and perhaps conspiratorial because you are angry that he got promoted even though you were right about the Iraq War in 2003. Of course, that would be horribly wrong and instead you should be given more credibility because you were right back then and have a lot of experience dealing more accurately with these types of issues.
Also, the vested financial and reputational interests of the various parties should be considered. Motive and possible resultant bias is important, but should be considered proportionately. It is in no way reasonable to equate your possible retribution motive with that of a public figure whose career and income is provided by the military complex.
I once lost out on some issue, then got blamed for my subsequent opinions based on the fact that I hadn't gotten my way on the previous issue. That felt really bad -- like adding insult to injury.
If you've got a problem with Bret's current position on something, it's perverse to question his motivation based upon some harm possibly having been done to him in the past. This is so inconsistent with your warnings about biases.
Not exactly. I think Bret was right about some stuff in the past despite being a non-perfect person, then he started being wrong about a lot of stuff. Or he, shall we say, went off the deep end.
I honestly have no idea why he takes the stances he currently takes. I just notice a consistency in that he likes to act like he's an expert in fields outside of evolutionary biology (to be fair, I'm not an expert either, but I hope I don't come off as one). If you dig into some of the claims he makes, you find out he actually knows very little.
Also I should apologize to Bob if my post and this thread is a little off-topic.
While Bret was at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 90s, he wrote a letter to the school newspaper condemning sexual harassment of strippers at a frat party. The retaliatory harassment he got was so bad that he transferred to UC Santa Cruz.
For all I know, he made important discoveries as a graduate student and didn't get the recognition he deserves.
My feeling is that there's general agreement on the left that he was unfairly targeted by student activists at Evergreen for what amounts to writing a strongly-worded letter disagreeing with campus Diversity Equity Inclusion policies (and even then, part of me wonders whether he actually read the Douglas Turner Ward play and considered whether it's closer to colorblind left-liberalism or closer to James Baldwin). Every criticism after that is pretty much a fair response to what he's said on the DarkHorse podcast. This Willamette Week article is good: https://www.wweek.com/news/2021/09/15/a-progressive-biologist-from-portland-is-one-of-the-nations-leading-advocates-for-ivermectin/
I think Nancy Koppelman is trustworthy. Bret seems very smart and good at acting like he's read books or articles that he's only skimmed. He's good at tapping into people's natural skepticism and creativity but he has not done the actual work necessary to create skeptical commentary on a topic like COVID, mRNA vaccines, or even anarchists and BLM in Portland. I think he might have good reasons to be more skeptical based on his life experiences but he hasn't done the actual work necessary to co e up wiuth something like Ben Goldacre's books.
So, massive financial conflicts of interests -- supported by facts -- are outweighed by imputed suspicions of envy?
Malone has been marginalized for daring to question the vaccines. The pharma blob went all in on the vaccines and sought to discredit any alternatives or questions regarding their safety and efficacy. The big money then nitpicks those who disagree with them, but the picture shows that Malone et al are more right than the blob, IMHO.
Well, he's convinced he's found some answers. So hear him out!
The depth of response generally to Malone seems to be == "He's anti-vax", but that's not right. He's not convinced THESE vaccines are safe and effective. He presents lots of evidence and brings a lot of technical expertise to the issue. I think he's broadly right that these vaccines do more harm than good, at least at this point in the epidemic and for people who are young in generally good health.
I don't see Malone's emotional state being an issue. I watched the Joe Rogan interview, and he was very calm and exceptionally clear headed throughout. The Rogan format allows speculations that may not be firmly established. Bob picks up on a couple of those, and shows the inconsistency in a couple of the items, but these are nitpicks. Bob is probably envious of all the attention Rogan and Malone are getting - JUST KIDDING.
I have been reading all Robert Wrights books, learned and enjoyed., listen to his talks on various media. However I was surprised by this post which I found in very contradictory.
It was almost as bad as hearing Noam Chomsky suggest that the unvaxed should be put in camps! And yes I have read a lot of Chomsky’s books and think that he should be widely read.
So please don’t tell me what I can say … Is this the land of the free / free speech? And no I don’t disregard the point he made it might be valid… has anybody asked Robert Malone what he has to say about the critique?
“You're doing this because this is how you were taught to behave by the systems you use to connect your mind with the world. “
Impressed that you are able to know all this about me and my motives, from a very short post!!! (9 words)
This article by Bob caused me to belly-up with a subscription. I've always admired his clarity of thought and balance. This is a great example. It is easy to be suspicious of Big Pharma. There are lots of examples of shoddy research and poor process we can point to. I'm personally fond of Bad Pharma by Ben Goldacre. That said, Bob's points with respect to Malone's motivations resonate strongly. Real wisdom IMHO. I listened to the entire (!) podcast with Rogan and Malone and it really helped me appreciate how people can buy in to Malone's narrative, but the statement's Bob points out couldn't be overlooked and damaged his credibility with me. Lot's of claims of multitudes of studies that supported his viewpoints as well as credible third parties, but they don't seem to exist when you drill down. I really appreciate Bob's humility and ability to give someone I could easily dismiss the benefit of the doubt that comes with recognizing our common, human biases and failings. Bravo, Bob!
There are strong parallels here to the few (but non-zero) climate change contrarians who are experts, such as Richard Lindzen at MIT. Lindzen is a brilliant scientist who has made major contributions to understanding the climate system yet has repeatedly and publicly downplayed the risks of climate change. He also doesn't believe that smoking causes cancer. There is a conspiratorial aspect to his thinking, in particular he points to group-think among climate scientists, and confirmation bias is also at work in the worry that climate change will prompt greater government control over our lives.
The patterns in right-wing conspiracism are usually:
1. Paranoia/anxiety about some type of impending martial law or crackdown (like "Biden National Lockdown Coming in Next 10 Days"). People like to make fun of this, but the anxiety conspiracy believers have is real to them. Usually, it supposedly didn't happen this time because the elites fear popular revolt.
2. Unelected government officials are conspiring to use an actual, imagined, or manufactured crisis to take away rights and freedoms.
You need to use that as an "interpretive lens" when thinking about, for example, exactly why the claims about gain-of-function research are so important. It's not just questioning whether mainstream science is influenced by confirmation bias, it's that conspiracist arguments can seem extremely compelling to people who assume (1) and (2) are true as their "analytical lens." It also explains why your buddies at the CIA didn't take your emails seriously.
I think this "lens" explains how someone like Malone or Bret Weinstein can move from distrust of other researchers to conspiracism without completely losing touch with reality or rationality like the QAnon people have.
Look no further than the amazing Linus Pauling. His vitamin C claims were thoroughly debunked during his lifetime, and he called it all a conspiracy. Absolute brilliance can lead to absolute certainty, despite the evidence.
That was great analysis, thank you!
Great critical review of Malone's thought and behavior based on cognitive biases.
I side with Malone over Wright on this. For me, it boils down to credibility, starting with the lab leak. The lab leak is so obviously true in my view that anyone who fails to see it is not credible, and that's how I see Wright on this issue. It's very risky to go against the big pharma blob, so Bob evades the subject.
On top of this, the authorities were wrong about how the virus is transmitted, and their vaccine and only vaccine approach to prevention and treatment has proven a disaster, as predicted by Bret Weinstein and Malone.
The conventional wisdom, led by those at WHO and CDC and propagated by the mainstream media, has been politicized and horribly wrong -- far outshining any of Malone's inconsistencies. Then there's the censorship. Rand Paul was suspended from YouTube for correctly pointing out that cloth masks don't work. Facebook was telling people that the lab leak was false and grounds for suspension. The Lancet published a letter by Peter Daszak saying that the lab leak was a conspiracy theory. Talk about conflict of interest!!!! These outrageous incidents have one thousand times the conflict of interest that Robert imagines within Malone's mind.
I do agree with Robert that Malone is inconsistent in how many lives would have been saved with effective treatment. Good catch! And many of Malone's other observations can be legitimately questioned. But the overwhelming failure here is that of the authorities who are 1) Responsible for creating the virus; 2) Responsible for failing to encourage open discussion and experimentation with various treatments; 3) Politicizing the virus.
So let's talk about the facts and not about who's crazy. I'm with Rogan and Malone more than Wright and Fauci, but the important thing is to stay constructive. For me that means starting with the big picture and what is most important. If Wright disagrees with any of my three points (lab leak origin, treatment options, politicization), then he can argue those points.
Biases and motives are important, as Bob points out in separate posts with which I very much agree. But they are most important in examining our own behavior. In judging others' behavior, we generally have to argue the facts. The facts can include such factors as conflicts of interest. That Malone has no obvious conflicts of interest, unlike the big pharma blob, is of huge import. That Malone may be jealous is not really solid, in my humble opinion.
Good points. The speculation about Malone's personal motives is interesting, but it seems to be functioning as a distraction from his concerns that are shared by other credentialed professionals in relevant fields who aren't as controversial and don't have Malone's backstory. There has been a common theme throughout the pandemic of inconsistencies and wrong information being called out, scrutinized or censored if it might interfere with vaccine acceptance, but given a pass or ignored as long as it encourages or doesn't interfere with the vaccine rollout.
I like your description "big pharma blob" and I agree tech could've had a lighter touch with some of what they banned. and yes I agree with you that the lab leak makes the most sense.... but I also think malone is totally out to lunch. so I don't think those two beliefs are mutually exclusive.
also i'm not sure where you get the idea that the authorities have taken a "vaccine and vaccine only approach to prevention and treatment"? on the treatment side, hospitalized patients can be given any combination of: monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, anti-inflammatories like tocilizumab and baricitinib, and the steroid dexamehtasone.
on the prevention side, the medical authorities have been pretty consistent from the start: avoid indoor public spaces, avoid large gatherings, get tested if you feel bad and stay at home if you do and yes wear a mask. but vaccines save lives and do an excellent job at keeping people from being hospitalized. so pushing them was/and is obviously the smartest and most moral choice.
lastly politicization of covid? absolutely! the evidence is as clear as day it was (and is) of course the republicans with trump leading the charge. there is a lot of deep dive reporting on how Trump's own medical team was dumbfounded and ultimately thwarted because of the former prez's inane and stupifying responses the covid pandemic.
cheers!
Thanks for the thoughtful comments. I don't have much time as I have a lunch date, but your questions deserve responses however incomplete.
1. Regarding "vaccine and vaccine only", you make some good points. My thinking is that doctors around the world have reported good success with a number of early treatments including ivermectin and colchicine. Why discourage such treatments, or falsely claim the drugs to be dangerous?
2. The authorities were also wrong about how the disease is transmitted and have not spoken clearly enough even after finally admitting the fact of aerosol transmission. See https://www..wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/.
3. I don't think Trump was leading the politicization. He was, as always, an a**, but many Dems seem to think that anything Trump says must be false and therefore the opposite of what Trump says must be true. Thus, the lab leak, the hydroxychloroquine nonsense, etc.
Anyway, I appreciate the thoughtful comments. Much to digest.
"much to digest" ha. indeed with food & thought. but yes, i see no reason why ivermectin can't be given to people who want it in the hospital. the prohibition seems a bit much. but even with that and the missteps along the way with messaging - as u point out- these should be expected from people working with good intentions. because they are people! and as bob's post points out, humans are fallible!
what the medical and govt authorities have tried to do isn't easy. they'll get some things wrong - and a mutating virus doesn't help! we got stuff wrong during WW2, we screwed up sending a man to the moon. when you do big things, there will be screw ups. yes, mistake should be pointed out so they get fixed. but instead of good faith criticism, we get conspiratorial bile from rand paul, dr. malone et al.
rand isn't happy to merely make a point about mask effectiveness, instead he rants their use pushed by the govt is "curtailing our most basic liberties, using the COVID-19 pandemic as their excuse.” it's that word "excuse" that's the problem. as if, the govt is looking for a reason to limit liberties?
we've lost the ability to give and take criticism in the country - both the right and left - and it will be our undoing.
cheers!
Ivermectin isn't given to people in hospitals because in some studies it has been seen to make patients worse.
Otherwise, your points are excellent!
It's important to note that *early* treatment which could have kept patients out of the hospital was discouraged. Remdesivir is expensive, toxic, and too late in the game when given to hospitalized patients because viral replication has occurred already. From what I can gather halting viral replication as soon as possible is rather obvious, this is why, for instance, the anti-viral medication for shingles has such a short window of efficacy (I was unlucky enough to miss that window when I had a case).
hi....what kind of early treatment was discouraged and by whom and why? because it sounds like you're hinting at something nefarious? ;) I would say doctors and public health officials are for the most part good people who want to help us humans. compared to say, bankers or hollywood agents. I'm not naive but i'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt as long as their working from good intentions.
Melinda was probably referring to ivermectin, hydroxychlorquine, colchicine, etc. There are groups of doctors who have generated early treatment protocols (flccc.net for example), but these people have been discouraged and deplatformed rather than encouraged or engaged with. My impression is that the outsiders have been proven right as time has gone by. Many of the off label drugs work against covid, especially when used in combination. On the other hand, the vaccines have not worked very well and places where few vaccines have been administered are doing as well or better than places that have been saturated with vaccines.
Now as to why. It is no secret that huge profits have been made. It's also probable that some of the most powerful people in the world, including Dr Fauci, stand to lose everything were they to speak the truth. These are very powerful incentives to, as Bob mighI say, deceive oneself as to the best approach.
Overall, however, I agree 100% with your approach to give people the benefit of the doubt and be patient with one another. It's a frightening and confusing situation and mistakes are inevitable even when people are trying to do the right thing.
Yes, this is what I was referring to. There have also been many reports of pharmacies refusing to fill prescriptions for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, and doctors being disciplined for prescribing them. I recently came across just such an example in my own state, where a doctor who has been practicing for 41 years has had her license temporarily suspended for this. It might be true that doctors are generally good people but it seems they are under scrutiny from the people who can fire them, and not everyone is willing to go against the grain.
yes i'm well aware of FLCCC. most of their treatment protocol rests on the supposed efficacy of ivermectin which the jury is still out on.
but I don't know where you're getting the idea "vaccines haven't worked very well"? they have worked extremely well. statistics from all over the world prove this. and no, places without vaccines aren't doing better. they're doing much worse. developing nations are begging for vaccines. the west's failure to share them is a crime.
profits are surely to be made from vaccines but this fact doesn't prove the whole vaccine enterprise is necessarily corrupt? vaccines are saving lives and keeping people from hospitals.
fauci indeed has a powerful job but again, this doesn't defacto mean he's corrupt. he's been a govt employee for over 50 years for gods sake! ;) he could've bailed decades ago and secured plushy, lucrative spots on corporate boards, but he didn't. so it's fair to say he isn't motivated by greed. maybe power? sure or maybe he's just motivated by public health and unfortunately been swept up in a tidal wave of cynicism and conspiracy?
yes a bit of cynicism is certainly justified these days, but blanket cynicism just snuffs out the ones actually trying to do some good :)
Regarding vaccine efficacy -- https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/new-big-data-study-of-145-countries
New big data study of 145 countries show COVID vaccines makes things worse (cases and deaths)
A new study by Kyle A. Beattie entitled “Worldwide Bayesian Causal Impact Analysis of Vaccine Administration on Deaths and Cases Associated with COVID-19: A Big Data Analysis of 145 Countries” concluded that vaccines are doing the opposite of what they were promised to do.
This is hardly the first study to reach those conclusions. These studies, all done independently, found the same thing—the more you vaccinate, the worse things get.
The Lyons-Weiler paper
The Harvard study
The German study
The Denmark study (which shows Dr. James was right; you have to boost every 30 days to maintain protection.
German government data (this is from The Expose)
80% of the COVID deaths in the UK are vaccinated
Lancet: 89% Of New UK COVID Cases Among Fully Vaxxed
So it's not clear to me. I've come to distrust the mainstream reporting on this. I've seen first hand how they ignore studies (such as FLCCC reports) that don't fit the big pharma narrative. And Fauci seems to be their man.
I could be wrong, but that's what I believe. Or, rather, that's what I don't believe (WHO, CDC, Fauci, NY Times, ...).
Power and ego can do a lot of damage. Fauci has a history of promoting and defending failed new therapeutics and vaccines, and the NIAID is heavily loaded with pharmaceutical interests. He doesn't seem to be motivated by public health at all, though I think he has over the years secured an image as someone who does. At the beginning of the pandemic I thought the fact that he had been in office forever counted for something, institutional knowledge and all that, but once his role in gain-of-function research came out it all started unraveling. He is not a force for good.
Excellent! Thank you.
Thanks for the reporting on RM over the last weeks (inasmuch as this is almost the length of a Glenn Greenwald column, I still hope that Mickey reads it).,
Good piece. A plausible assessment of Malone's personal motives and world view which appears to be quite right wing.
A few things struck me. He says he had an ongoing relationship with senior people at the agencies that he sent the Chinese protocol to. So perhaps he is justified in being surprised at finding himself unusually ignored on such a vital point during a crisis - in the exact area of expertese on which they had been used to consult him? He wasn't just some random guy firing off a few emails that wouldn't be noticed. He does have long and significant experience in the field whatever may be true about the invention of mRNA vaccines. He is quite open about his involvement, in fact, and says that he put a lot of effort into making a SAFE vaccine and could not - which is why he is unconvinced and worried by the claim that these Covid vaccnines are safe. No corona vaccine has ever succeeded - and neither have these ones.
He is clear too that he has no professional conflict of interest and that he is acting, at this very late stage in his career with no expectation of reward of any kind, but out of concern for what is happening. That doesn't quite come through in your assessment. My understanding of what both he and Dr Peter McCullough have said on Joe Rogan is that neither Ivermectin nor Hydroxy on their own is enough but that administered as part of 'kitchen sink' protocols that include several other treatments (vitamin D and Zinc e.g.) they are proven highly effective - by many doctors in many regions of the world at this stage. They have both been very clear on that point - and also that any protocol needs to be administered as early as possible after contracting the virus. Some of the worst symptoms occur after the virus has passed on so catching it early is important. That people shoud not simply wait around at home to see whether or not they are going to get a bad dose, which - weirdly - is what the official position has been. The focus has solely been on vaccines. Extremely peculiar.
There is also the matter that Ivermectin and Hydroxy have been falsely and widely vilified as unsafe and untested. It's completely untrue - they are well-established, safe and cheap medications, whatever their merits in this context. So there is that lie to be addressed too - and the outrageous 'trials' that were set up to disprove their safety but which had to be withdrawn when the facts emerged. The other side of this - and you mention it more or less in passing - it's an extremely unheathy situation that commercial entities like Pfizer and Moderna who are making billions out of this crisis are being treated as disinterested parties. They are quoted religiously by the media as if there were no conflict of interest when in fact there is a colossal one.
Vaccines that they were so sure were 96% effective just months ago are now openly admitted to be of little or no use, according to the head of Pfizer himself, Bourla. We may need to give you a new one every four months, he says. Ker-ching! (Anybody got any concerns, at all, about the health impact of repeated vaccine interventions?) In whose commercial interests is it that vaccines shoud be mandated - especially when those same companies have been indemnified against prosecution for side effects? When they have not yet even completed trials to '23. When Pfizer have sought to have the trial data sealed for 75 years?
A further wrinkle is whether these 'vaccines' are in fact vaccines at all. Whether they are in fact a form of gene treatment. The head of Bayer has said they are the latter and that the pharmaceutical companies have been overjoyed by this opportunity to test them out - a scenario he said that not even one year previously could they have even dreamed of hoping for. So there's that too.
And why must a treatment that prevents neither infection nor transmission be mandated? Why is any sane democrat not vehemently opposed to QR coded 'vaccine passes'? Have we learned nothing about how prone our governments are to illegal data use and abuse? The World Bank has declared itself delighted by the opportunity the epidemic has created for moving us towards a fully digital world. Do we actually want that? What did Snowden show us? It may well be that the response to the pandemic has been crude and authoritarian rather than pre-meditated conspiracy. But Malone and McCullough are not wrong in one regard at least, that too much has been taken at face value about decisions that have affected the whole world. That the concerns of thousands of highly qualified and experienced doctors have been shouted down if not completely ignored by credulous media who want to believe in a reassuring narrative, that Daddy and The Doctor know what is best. Fauci makes himself out to be irreproachable, infallible science personified. Whille there are thusands of well-meaning men and women working in good faith at pharmaceutical companies, is there another context in which the word of giant corproations would be given such an uncritical, unquestioning reception? Particularly when they have already have a dubious track record in the courts? If we are going to take aim at Malone and people like him, we absolutely must take a much colder and closer look at the new orthodoxism equally and urgently. Established media are failing dismally in this regard.
I'm not sure what you mean when say these vaccines haven't succeeded. It's pretty clear that you're much more likely to die of Covid--whether Delta or Omicron--if you're vaxed than if you're not, right? Do you just mean the vaccines haven't ended the pandemic?
The vaccines have clearly not succeeded in preventing infection or transmission of covid which is still rampant among the vaxed. As to whether they are more effective than any number of other treatments which have been discouraged is unknown, in my opinion. The vaccines may well have done more harm than good among young people. Who knows to what extent the vaccines have impacted the evolution of the pandemic? Malone makes a good point that you have not addressed regarding vaccine safety and the VAERS database. Just because the VAERS database is not considered useful by the government Pharma Blob, it's all we have regarding vaccine adverse effects post mass deployment.
Now I agree that the vaccines probably reduce the severity of the disease once contracted. But I'm not sure how big an effect this is considering the fact that covid is much more deadly amongst the old, obese, and others with comorbidities. Most people would recover from covid without the vaccines and have better immunity.
The whole thing has been horribly politicized and "big science" has been discredited. Random Control Trials are not the be all and end all of medicine and science in general, as pointed by Bret Weinstein and acknowledged widely. Observation and anecdote are important precursors to the development and testing of effective hypotheses. Not all RCT experiments are unbiased as much depends upon the design of the study (doses given, combinations of drugs in play, factors and parasitic worms in the environment, etc.).
I'm vaxed and boostered and am glad I am, but don't think the science is by any means settled on a number of these issues. By the way, I'm not sure if you've seen this article from 2016 which describes how big pharma was on shaky footing with regard to vaccine safety pre-covid -- <a href="https://www.psandman.com/col/dishonesty.htm">U.S. Public Health Professionals Routinely Mislead the Public about Infectious Diseases: True or False? Dishonest or Self-Deceptive? Harmful or Benign?</a>. (This is not at all about autism.)
Love your stuff and most of your conversations with Mickey.
The VAERS database, which is self-reported and therefore not rigorous (though still useful) is not by any means all we have. For example, there is the V-Safe system that allows people to report side effects, or lack of them, soon after vaccination. There is also a registry for women to report changes in their cycles, and one for pregnant women, though I can't remember just now where one finds those.
The CDC is being sued to release the V-Safe data. You would think that if V-Safe is a more rigorous collection system and has data that contradicts the alarming number of adverse events reported to VAERS, or at least puts it in context, that they would release it.
It's an anti-vax group suing, and apparently CDC is saying that the data needs to be de-identified first. I haven't been able to find much detail on this lawsuit.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cdc-lawsuit-vaccine-data
(Sorry, FOX was the best I could find on this.)
Here is background on what v-safe is supposed to accomplish and why it exists:
https://www.oracle.com/emea/news/announcement/cdc-study-underscores-need-for-real-world-data-in-medicine-2021-05-04/
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/V-safe-Protocol-508.pdf
Here is a study on safety in pregnancy based on v-safe and VAERS:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983?query=featured_home
(This is just an example of the use of such databases.)
I used v-safe myself after my booster in November. If you sign up for it, you get messages on your phone asking you to report how you're doing.
Both v-safe and VAERS rely on self-reporting of symptoms, so to the best of my knowledge the reports of side effects or lack of side effects are subjective and rely on the person doing the reporting being accurate, which is what I meant by "not rigorous." I know I was accurate when I gave my own report.
Perhaps it sounded like I was implying that v-safe was more reliable than VAERS, but that's not what I intended, and I did say in my original comment that v-safe data is also self-reported. My point was that we have other data besides what is in VAERS.
The identity of the group behind the lawsuit is less significant to me (especially since the term 'anti-vax' gets applied too liberally these days to mean much) than the fact that the CDC is not releasing the data. According to one of their own documents the data given to Oracle is already de-identified: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/V-safe-Protocol-508.pdf, so their de-identification rationale for non-release doesn't make sense.
Thanks. I hadn't heard of V-Safe. I just looked it up and will keep my eyes open.
I mean that they don't function as typical vaccines- they neither prevent infection nor transmission. They don't sterilise the virus. They appear to reduce severity of illness for many which means they may be an effective treatment for some/most. That needs to be weighed against mounting evidence of pretty serious side effects for a significant minority. A serious risk is being taken with children and younger adults who were barely at risk at all from the virus itself.
They prevented infection by the early variants of the virus (I don't mean by 100 percent, but like 80-90 percent, which is big). Then less with Delta and barely at all with Omicron. But even with Omicron they reduce chances of death very significantly. All told, I think they've worked well enough that the downside risks would have to be big--much bigger than anything I've seen good evidence of--for the vaccines to not be on balance a very good thing.
Yes, but with a booster the effectiveness against omicron is largely restored. The vaccines have worked exceedingly well. Remember that other typical vaccines, such as the ones for flu, also work only up to a certain percentage. "Typical vaccines" don't 100% prevent either infection or transmission, they just reduce the likelihood. There is no such thing as a vaccine to "sterilise" the virus-- which isn't even a meaningful term.
"with a booster the effectiveness against omicron is largely restored" [Elene Gusch]
This didn't seem right so I did a quick Google. The top result:
https://fortune.com/2022/01/19/covid-19-boosters-block-immunity-omicron-study-finds/ -- COVID boosters do not provide protection against Omicron, study finds
"Booster shots with messenger RNA vaccines such as those made by Pfizer Inc. and BioNTech SE failed to block Omicron in a study of some of the first documented breakthrough cases caused by the highly contagious variant."
So I don't think the evidence is as clear as you imply.
Best!
There's a lot more to the article you cited. Actually, the article points out that boosters have shown quite a bit of effectiveness against omicron. The title is misleading.
'All the cases were mild or moderate, providing support for the extra shots’ ability to fend off severe disease, death and hospitalizations.'
'...The shots appear to generate protection against Omicron with other parts of the immune system in addition to antibodies, such as T-cells, and so far hospital and mortality data have been less severe than with the Delta variant that dominated earlier.'
'...Strong responses from T-cells were detected in the subjects, the researchers said. “The mild to moderate course of illness suggests that full vaccination followed by a booster dose still provides good protection against severe disease caused by Omicron,” they said.'
'Block' is not a very meaningful term in this context. Apparently the author meant that the boosters do not absolutely prevent infection with omicron-- but we didn't expect that they would. They didn't absolutely prevent every infection with earlier variants, either, and omicron is more transmissible by far than anything seen previously.
While the first two shots of mRNA vaccines show relatively little efficacy against omicron, every piece of evidence I've seen says that a booster brings a vaccinated person's immunity to omicron up close to where it was with delta. I'm not saying this on the basis of "a quick Google," but after reading every study I could find and meeting with infectious disease and public health experts from around my state for weekly updates for nearly two years.
Here's a nice crunchy article on a mechanism which can explain why boosters help:
https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0092-8674%2822%2900006-X
"Omicron’s Message on Vaccines: Boosting Begets Breadth"
'In this issue of Cell, three studies confirm that SARS-CoV-2 Omicron strongly evades a key immune defense—neutralizing antibodies. However, while one- or two-dose vaccine regimens fail to induce anti-Omicron neutralizing antibodies, a homologous 3rd-dose booster rescues neutralization function in a way that highlights the adaptability of immune memory, where recalled immune memory extends antibody reach across-SARS-CoV-2 variants.'
'Rescues neutralization function' is a more technical way of saying 'effectiveness is largely restored.'
I hope that helps clarify. I'm outta here-- got to get the office ready for tomorrow's patients.
I really have to wonder if you've seen how many younger adults have been hospitalized and killed by this disease, especially in recent months. The numbers are fewer with kids, but they are by no means insignificant. You see vaccines as carrying more serious risks than the disease, but that is incorrect. For example, COVID itself causes myocarditis far more often than the vaccines do. (I'm not adding a link, as this is easy to look up.)
I have a couple of patients who have had so many severe reactions to various substances that vaccines appear to have an unacceptable degree of risk-- or rather, more risk than those individuals feel willing to accept-- but only a couple of them. I can understand that in individual cases the risk/benefit ratio may tilt in favor of avoiding vaccination, but after over a year of closely observing experiences with vaccines around the world, I can't see it as being true on a population level.
We can breathe a little bit easier (sounds like a bad pun, sorry) with the growing evidence that omicron is less likely to cause really severe disease, even while our society is being battered by the sheer number of sick people. However, the more people are unvaccinated, and the more catch the virus, the more opportunities it has to mutate into variants that could be far worse. That is a potential serious risk to children and younger adults along with everyone else.
Given that omicron transmission is not prevented by vaccination, 'more unvaccinated=more mutations' doesn't make sense.
"I mean that they don't function as typical vaccines- they neither prevent infection nor transmission. They don't sterilise the virus."
Vaccines don't "sterilise" viruses (or other pathogens), they trigger immune responses in the body that protect against future infections of a virus. Commonly vaccines work by leading to the production of immune components (antibody proteins) in the body that latch onto a virus and thereby mark it for destruction by immune cells. They cannot prevent infection or even some transmission--what they can prevent is for a virus to propagate to high enough levels in the body to cause serious disease in the vaccinated person.
And vaccines typically are never 100% effective for a variety of reasons--for instance, a virus may mutate (as in the case of omikron) and thereby elude immune responses triggered by a previous vaccination, and individuals differ often markedly in the strength and duration of immune responses.
Myriad factors are at play that determine how effective a vaccine is--in that sense, there's no "typical" vaccine. And in the case of COVID-19, a strategy of vaccination coupled with means that reduce person-to-person transmission (like masks, physical distancing, and paid sick leave) would have likely been very successful--alas both vaccination campaigns and policies and efforts for reducing transmission were thwarted at every turn, resulting in a horrendously tragic outcome.
THANK YOU. Some people have very confused concepts about what vaccines are actually capable of and expected to do. You have explained that very well.
Absolutely. One is far more likely to get significantly sick or die if one is unvaccinated. We have a year of experience to show this. I can't believe it's even an argument anymore. The fact that it still is illustrates the points in your post, about having reasons to believe what one wants to believe, even when it makes no sense.
I don't know. More people have died since we started getting vaccines, in spite of the fact that the weakest were most likely to go first, and that many people had natural immunity by the time the vaccines were rolled out. Not to mention that countries without vaccines have done just fine. But I'm open-minded if you have evidence (links) to support your point. Best!
More people have died because more time has gone by, the virus has had more opportunity over time to penetrate into populations, and the more transmissible and severe delta variant developed.
I have no idea what you mean by "countries without vaccines have done just fine." Please specify which countries and in which ways they have done fine. That's quite the opposite of anything I've seen.
At this point, stating that one is more likely to get significantly sick or die of COVID if one is unvaccinated is pretty much like saying water is wet or the sky is blue. The information is everywhere-- but you may not be bumping into it. I understand that not everyone does direct patient care like I do, or spends time with university infectious disease departments or marinates in epidemiology and virology information for fun like I do. You probably have plenty of other things to occupy your time and are not constantly poring over public health statistics.
So here's one quick link on the latest from New Mexico:
https://www.abqjournal.com/2462844/state-sets-single-day-covid-19-case-record.html
I wish I could directly post the chart from the article here. It says that of the patients hospitalized, 82.9% are unvaccinated, and of those who have died, 89.1% are unvaccinated. Those numbers are very typical of what we're seeing in recent times.
'Bye, stay well.
Thanks Elene! I'll try to respond to your points.
"More people have died because more time has gone by"
Actually, the vaccines started to be rolled out about year ago, and the virus had already been around for about a year at that time.
"I have no idea what you mean by "countries without vaccines have done just fine." Please specify which countries and in which ways they have done fine. That's quite the opposite of anything I've seen."
Here are some relevant tables:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
The United States has the 19th highest death rate out of 224 countries, despite having a high vaccination rate (63% fully vaccinated). India has the 130th highest death rate, despite having only 48% of its people vaccinated. Russia has the 32nd highest death rate despite having only 47% of its population vaccinated. The Philippines has the 122nd highest death rate withonly 57% of the population vaccinated. I could go on and on cherry picking the data, but better to look at the big data studies such as this one: https://vector-news.github.io/editorials/CausalAnalysisReport_html.html
The findings: There has been a higher death rate where the vaccine has been administered at a higher rate.
That's enough for one post. I look forward to continuing the conversation!
I'm looking at the article you referenced from New Mexico. I agree that it indicates the vaccine is effective in preventing death, but it seems the effect is short lived.
"The omicron variant is currently ripping through New Mexico at rates not previously seen in the pandemic. The state has been reporting between 4,000 and more than 5,500 cases per day for more than a week. On Wednesday, the state reported 5,735 new cases – a single-day record.
That’s about twice as many cases as the state was reporting during the virus’s peak in late 2020, before vaccines were widely available."
Anyway, thanks for the reference and sharing that you personally treat patients.
There is also the matter that Ivermectin and Hydroxy have been falsely and widely vilified as unsafe and untested. It's completely untrue - they are well-established, safe and cheap medications, whatever their merits in this context. So there is that lie to be addressed too - and the outrageous 'trials' that were set up to disprove their safety but which had to be withdrawn when the facts emerged. The other side of this - and you mention it more or less in passing - it's an extremely unheathy situation that commercial entities like Pfizer and Moderna who are making billions out of this crisis are being treated as disinterested parties. They are quoted religiously by the media as if there were no conflict of interest when in fact there is a colossal one.
Vaccines that they were so sure were 96% effective just months ago are now openly admitted to be of little or no use, according to the head of Pfizer himself, Bourla. We may need to give you a new one every four months, he says. Ker-ching! (Anybody got any concerns, at all, about the health impact of repeated vaccine interventions?) In whose commercial interests is it that vaccines shoud be mandated - especially when those same companies have been indemnified against prosecution for side effects? When they have not yet even completed trials to '23. When Pfizer have sought to have the trial data sealed for 75 years?
A further wrinkle is whether these 'vaccines' are in fact vaccines at all. Whether they are in fact a form of gene treatment. The head of Bayer has said they are the latter and that the pharmaceutical companies have been overjoyed by this opportunity to test them out - a scenario he said that not even one year previously could they have even dreamed of hoping for. So there's that too.
And why must a treatment that prevents neither infection nor transmission be mandated? Why is any sane democrat not vehemently opposed to QR coded 'vaccine passes'? Have we learned nothing about how prone our governments are to illegal data use and abuse? The World Bank has declared itself delighted by the opportunity the epidemic has created for moving us towards a fully digital world. Do we actually want that? What did Snowden show us? It may well be that the response to the pandemic has been crude and authoritarian rather than pre-meditated conspiracy. But Malone and McCullough are not wrong in one regard at least, that too much has been taken at face value about decisions that have affected the whole world. That the concerns of thousands of highly qualified and experienced doctors have been shouted down if not completely ignored by credulous media who want to believe in a reassuring narrative, that Daddy and The Doctor know what is best. Fauci makes himself out to be irreproachable, infallible science personified. Whille there are thusands of well-meaning men and women working in good faith at pharmaceutical companies, is there another context in which the word of giant corproations would be given such an uncritical, unquestioning reception? Particularly when they have already have a dubious track record in the courts? If we are going to take aim at Malone and people like him, we absolutely must take a much colder and closer look at the new orthodoxism equally and urgently. Established media are failing dismally in this regard.
Hi all, I just got back from an ICU visit (COVID related & a wedding, which is why I'm late to this post. I did watch the whole Rogan/Malone podcast weeks ago. I tend to use my own experience when assessing things and people (as well as published data). Nonzero makes good points regarding 'human nature' & human motivations (self-preservation, status, etc.) driving their agendas.
On the US death stats. On average 3 million people die each year in the US. Most all deaths 'from' COVID occur among old and sick people - people's whose time was about up. We won't know the true effect of COVID for years - meaning did the people who died 'from' COVID increase that total of 3m, to say 3.5m? in years 2020-22? Or does the 3m average hold up?
I've stated this earlier - my brother got COVID in Dec. 2020, was in ICU for 50 days! He's been on oxygen ever since, but 'home'. His wife got it, too. Same time, same strain. No symptoms.
He just collapsed on Jan, 13, 2022 and was unresponsive and put on 'the machine'. The doctors told us when they take him off - he could die within hours, days at most. So far, 12 days later, they're wrong. He's doing well, so far. His lungs are severely damaged, really, really, bad. Hospice has taken over. And they found that the treatment and oxygen supplying machines were WRONG! And that his biggest threat to breathing is anxiety. So they're trying to treat that. (Won't go into all the details and drama.) This jives with the CDC's own data that 'fear and anxiety disorders' are the 2nd highest risk-increasing factor for bad outcomes.
We are, the US population, not a healthy society - in many ways. All of which contributes to bad outcomes. Fear and anxiety have been exploited to the max - for political and professional gains. Unfortunately, that's human nature, too.
I got the COVID from Santa this last Christmas. I'm okay. Was a little scary for a few days. I'm not on any one's stat sheet. The only doctor I see is a Psychologist. WE 'chat'. She urges me to get vaxed. But me and my rowdy friends? - well ... I told y'all my story earlier.
Long story short - my brother's been sick his whole life. Bad luck? Me, healthy. Hospice is taking good care of him.
Cheers.
Great piece, Bob. I would highly recommend listening to Dr. Peter Attia's Drive podcast. If you aren't familiar, he is an MD with a focus on all things longevity and extending health span. He's a brilliant guy, very data driven, and doesn't really get political. He had two Covid related podcasts over the last few weeks with some well known MD's and a Virologist, exploring all aspects of Covid - Efficacy of the vaccines, policy decisions, natural immunity, the role Tribalism has played in the whole thing, and a thorough debunking of Malone. Well worth your time.
Just hopscotching through this article on the history of mRNA vaccine development (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w), one gets a good sense that the development of mRNA vaccines had a bevy of players involved (as is usually the case in scientific research, which rarely proceeds linearly and predictably and sprawls often across several continents).
The piece mentions Malone at the start, but it becomes clear very quickly that although his contribution was important, it doesn't make him the "inventor of mRNA vaccines" by any stretch of the imagination. Lots of setbacks on the way (mRNA is a tricky molecule to work with--it's very unstable and can itself trigger unwanted immune responses), so a lot of fine-tuning and additional breakthroughs (and coaxing of funding agencies) were required to get this medical modality to where it is today.
My sense is that precisely because there were legions of researchers involved in developing this vaccine technology, it wasn't particularly hard to get one in front of microphones claiming to have made seminal contributions to it and to use that appropriated prestige to offer byzantine narratives about how the "real truth" (e.g., about alternative treatments with worm medicines) is being suppressed by nefarious players. It would make for some modest entertainment if there weren't so many lives at stake.
Today, NPR also scrutinized Joe Rogan's podcast, and the report specifically mentions the recent appearance of Robert Malone on the podcast (https://www.npr.org/2022/01/21/1074442185/joe-rogan-doctor-covid-podcast-spotify-misinformation).
One worrisome and telling line (a quote from a researcher who studies misinformation) is at the end:
"We're not talking about fringe ideas," she said. "These are the most popular podcasts in the United States."
This goes a long way towards explaining why public health efforts to increase vaccination rates and masking are failing. Without a concerted push to put much tighter reins on podcasting platforms to reduce the spread of misinformation, most explanations and appeals by public health officials will evaporate in the hot air these platforms are generating.
This is a fascinating analysis. It's definitely difficult to say what constitutes "crazy" and what is just "saying ridiculous things to further one's own ends."
I want to emphasize the point that Bob made that monoclonal antibody drug shipments had been curtailed after it was found that they were ineffective against omicron. That is, Biden stopped supplying drugs that DON'T WORK in our present situation and couldn't be used. Oh, what a diabolical plot! Not.
For Malone to insist that somehow this does indicate heinous motivations on Biden's part, in the face of very obvious facts that are so easy for a scientist or medical professional to understand-- that does seem crazy to me. If he believes what he's saying, then at best he is willfully deluding himself. Delusion is considered part of some mental illness conditions, so we could be justified in calling that craziness.
(Whereas Rogan probably just wants money and attention, I suppose.)
The fact that the disease we're dealing with is new and we are all learning as we go along, the famous "building the plane while flying it," has made it all the easier for misinformation to get a foothold. Most people are going to be confused at any moment, including health care professionals like me, so if someone sounds authoritative and convincing their message can get through even if it is crazy.
Speaking of delusion, I'm saddened to see people still pushing ivermectin here. Bob gave a pretty good summary in his end note about why that doesn't make a lot of sense. I've already written extensively about that and related matters on my own blog, so I won't repeat myself here. These folks may be comforted, though, to hear that there is still some research on ivermectin going on, as well as studies of some other common drugs that have shown possible activity against COVID, such as fluvoxamine. They might not be game-changers, but researchers are still chasing down anything that might help. At least that was the case a couple of months ago, an eternity in pandemic time.
(By the way, colchicine is a hard no. It just hasn't been shown to help at all.)
This is old, from back in the day when conspiracy "hypothesists" were so big on HCQ, but the general concepts are still relevant:
https://elenedom.wordpress.com/2020/10/11/sorting-medical-fact-from-fiction-part-ii-we-need-therapy/
Malone certainly sounds a bit crazy to me. People who start claiming to have friends in the secret services often are a bit bonkers and indeed people who work for secret services often become quite paranoid and are themselves nuts. Has anyone noticed that rogan has the same peculiar orange skin colour as ex presidente trump? One can well imagine what bizarre conclusions rogan and malone might draw from some striking similarity in appearance between Biden and someone else they wanted to disparage. .
Bret Weinstein published a paper in 2002 with a discovery about telomeres that he claims he never received appropriate recognition for (thanks to the DISC or Distributed Idea Suppression Complex). Bret claimed his discovery implies that we should be much much more cautious when evaluating the safety of new drugs.
Bret consistently acts like he's a knowledgable expert in fields outside of evolutionary biology like virology, sociology, leftist debates about race and identity, or American politics. He doesn't seriously read works by other people, he just says what he thinks and blames the establishment in scientific academia for not taking him more seriously.
I think this is human nature, especially when you feel like you've made a groundbreaking discovery but people never gave you appropriate credit. There are scientists who really believe smoking doesn't cause cancer who aren't grifters getting paid by tobacco companies.
You see this on the left with extremely marginalized figures like Angela Davis in the 1960s and 1970s. Davis adopted "conspiracy-theory-like" beliefs to justify support for the USSR and the Peoples' Temple. Her support was totally unjustified and caused a great deal of harm because it led to some people taking atrocity reports less seriously when there were viable options to help people other than going to war, like countering prejudice against Vietnamese and Cambodian refugees.
Yes, Bret's another case where the grievance itself may be valid for all I know (I've looked into it a bit), but the grievance seems to have had some bad effects on how he sees the world.
I've had a couple of days to ruminate on this and I think I've spotted a variant of attribution bias. I like Bret Weinstein and Robert Malone and so I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt regarding possibly cranky or crazy behavior. From my situational perspective, they are regularly insulted and censored in public and thus it is not surprising if they are occasionally rude or share an unfiltered thought which seems crazy. From your dispositional perspective, anti-authoritarian behavior and/or anger is part of their personalities, possibly resulting from a retribution impulse stemming from a perceived wrong suffered in the past.
An analogy can be made to your attitude toward the foreign policy establishment. A critic could show dispositional bias due to your resentment toward Jeffrey Goldberg and his tribe. You are cranky and perhaps conspiratorial because you are angry that he got promoted even though you were right about the Iraq War in 2003. Of course, that would be horribly wrong and instead you should be given more credibility because you were right back then and have a lot of experience dealing more accurately with these types of issues.
Also, the vested financial and reputational interests of the various parties should be considered. Motive and possible resultant bias is important, but should be considered proportionately. It is in no way reasonable to equate your possible retribution motive with that of a public figure whose career and income is provided by the military complex.
Good analogy.
I once lost out on some issue, then got blamed for my subsequent opinions based on the fact that I hadn't gotten my way on the previous issue. That felt really bad -- like adding insult to injury.
If you've got a problem with Bret's current position on something, it's perverse to question his motivation based upon some harm possibly having been done to him in the past. This is so inconsistent with your warnings about biases.
Not exactly. I think Bret was right about some stuff in the past despite being a non-perfect person, then he started being wrong about a lot of stuff. Or he, shall we say, went off the deep end.
I honestly have no idea why he takes the stances he currently takes. I just notice a consistency in that he likes to act like he's an expert in fields outside of evolutionary biology (to be fair, I'm not an expert either, but I hope I don't come off as one). If you dig into some of the claims he makes, you find out he actually knows very little.
Also I should apologize to Bob if my post and this thread is a little off-topic.
While Bret was at the University of Pennsylvania in the early 90s, he wrote a letter to the school newspaper condemning sexual harassment of strippers at a frat party. The retaliatory harassment he got was so bad that he transferred to UC Santa Cruz.
For all I know, he made important discoveries as a graduate student and didn't get the recognition he deserves.
My feeling is that there's general agreement on the left that he was unfairly targeted by student activists at Evergreen for what amounts to writing a strongly-worded letter disagreeing with campus Diversity Equity Inclusion policies (and even then, part of me wonders whether he actually read the Douglas Turner Ward play and considered whether it's closer to colorblind left-liberalism or closer to James Baldwin). Every criticism after that is pretty much a fair response to what he's said on the DarkHorse podcast. This Willamette Week article is good: https://www.wweek.com/news/2021/09/15/a-progressive-biologist-from-portland-is-one-of-the-nations-leading-advocates-for-ivermectin/
I think Nancy Koppelman is trustworthy. Bret seems very smart and good at acting like he's read books or articles that he's only skimmed. He's good at tapping into people's natural skepticism and creativity but he has not done the actual work necessary to create skeptical commentary on a topic like COVID, mRNA vaccines, or even anarchists and BLM in Portland. I think he might have good reasons to be more skeptical based on his life experiences but he hasn't done the actual work necessary to co e up wiuth something like Ben Goldacre's books.
So, massive financial conflicts of interests -- supported by facts -- are outweighed by imputed suspicions of envy?
Malone has been marginalized for daring to question the vaccines. The pharma blob went all in on the vaccines and sought to discredit any alternatives or questions regarding their safety and efficacy. The big money then nitpicks those who disagree with them, but the picture shows that Malone et al are more right than the blob, IMHO.
I could be wrong...
But, is Malone just “questioning” the vaccines?
Well, he's convinced he's found some answers. So hear him out!
The depth of response generally to Malone seems to be == "He's anti-vax", but that's not right. He's not convinced THESE vaccines are safe and effective. He presents lots of evidence and brings a lot of technical expertise to the issue. I think he's broadly right that these vaccines do more harm than good, at least at this point in the epidemic and for people who are young in generally good health.
Best!
I don't see Malone's emotional state being an issue. I watched the Joe Rogan interview, and he was very calm and exceptionally clear headed throughout. The Rogan format allows speculations that may not be firmly established. Bob picks up on a couple of those, and shows the inconsistency in a couple of the items, but these are nitpicks. Bob is probably envious of all the attention Rogan and Malone are getting - JUST KIDDING.
I was actually having the same idea, NOT KIDDING
I have been reading all Robert Wrights books, learned and enjoyed., listen to his talks on various media. However I was surprised by this post which I found in very contradictory.
It was almost as bad as hearing Noam Chomsky suggest that the unvaxed should be put in camps! And yes I have read a lot of Chomsky’s books and think that he should be widely read.
So please don’t tell me what I can say … Is this the land of the free / free speech? And no I don’t disregard the point he made it might be valid… has anybody asked Robert Malone what he has to say about the critique?
“You're doing this because this is how you were taught to behave by the systems you use to connect your mind with the world. “
Impressed that you are able to know all this about me and my motives, from a very short post!!! (9 words)