A Group of 270 Scientists, Doctors, etc. Submit Open Letter to Spotify Regarding Joe Rogan (JRE)

[tstorm823]

I'm pretty sure liberals claimed it a long time ago. It just never mattered. Liberals claiming Free Speech is seen as politically correct. Specifically so others can claim it

Yeah, but now you've got things like this:

Opinion | Free Speech Is Killing Us (Published 2019)

Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

www.nytimes.com

Where the liberal establishment actively attacks free speech.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

"Liberals Get The Bullet Too"

 

[Trunkage]

Yeah, but now you've got things like this:

Opinion | Free Speech Is Killing Us (Published 2019)

Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

www.nytimes.com

Where the liberal establishment actively attacks free speech.

Sorry. Behind a pay wall for me. If I missed something that I could read sorry

You're going to have to point where I'm for much the 'Liberal establishment' have to say. I will say, discussing Free Speech, that I'm anti-Death threat. If there was going to be something I would ban, it would be that. But there doesn't seem to be any interest in doing anything about that from any quadrant of the political spectrum

Like Liberals in my country, 'liberal establishment' is just a fancy term for conservative that has better PR

 

[tstorm823]

Sorry. Behind a pay wall for me. If I missed something that I could read sorry

You're going to have to point where I'm for much the 'Liberal establishment' have to say. I will say, discussing Free Speech, that I'm anti-Death threat. If there was going to be something I would ban, it would be that. But there doesn't seem to be any interest in doing anything about that from any quadrant of the political spectrum

Like Liberals in my country, 'liberal establishment' is just a fancy term for conservative that has better PR

I never said you were for anything. You spoke of liberals claiming free speech in the past, so I provided a recent example of liberals disowning it.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Did they? Where exactly?

I literally posted the link in the post you quoted. Did you not see the vaccinated (no previous covid) line is higher than the unvaccinated (previous covid) line? Every single published and peer reviewed study has shown natural immunity is stronger.

"Proven fact" is your straw man. I would say we have a wealth of evidence all the way from physics to trials that makes the issue virtually beyond useful dispute at this time.

I don't need data, because the problem is that you don't understand what the cost-benefit analyses are showing so you don't have the data you think you do in the first place.

The CDC and Fauci are required to act on a reasonable scientific basis. Unlike you, they can't just skim over someone's guesswork and declare it to be the final word. Your over-reliance on guesswork is why you've trumpeted numerous treatments that turn out to be failures (hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, ivermectin). You simply tune out your failures and carry on deluding yourself you know better.

We can't prove if masks work over basically 2 years? The science hasn't even been done on masks, let alone anything proving they do anything. There's been nothing proving masks do anything against any airborne diseases (not counting N95s obviously). You got the Bangladesh RANDOMIZED study saying cloth masks do nothing, and surgical masks did nothing for those under 50. You got long-term data analysis of states that masked vs those that didn't and no significant differences. You got the doctor on CNN now saying masks do nothing as well. You're talking about physics from dummies when it was assumed covid was droplet based? Might as well use that mice study that that one doctor is right about the dangers of the spike protein and vaccines while ignoring all the real-world data showing no one's getting sick from the vaccines.

Then post a cost-benefit analysis that is up to your standards showing lockdowns provide more benefit than cost. But you can't because one doesn't exist.

Masks are more than 80% effective in stopping covid infections is REASONABLE?!?! I was never for HCQ, I literally said you can substitute it for something natural. Might as well try something that does no harm in case it works (you know, like masks). Getting healthy is the best way (outside of vaccines) to avoid poor covid outcomes and vitamin d is apart of that.

Israeli study offers strongest proof yet of vitamin D’s power to fight COVID

Bolstering previous research, scientists publish 'remarkable' data showing strong link between vitamin deficiency, prevalent in Israel, and death or serious illness among patients

www.timesofisrael.com

Yes, I'm in favor of penalising harmful messaging.

So that you don't get fucktwats like this openly running around;

Or get over 900.000 dead Americans because of a fucking pandemic.

Just wow, now the 1st fucking amendment is not a thing in your world.

And who's speech is responsible for 900,000 deaths?

Really? According to the ONS, in the UK in 2021, 16,079 people died with influenza as the underlying cause. 66,079 people died with COVID-19 as the underlying cause over the same period. And yes, that specifically excludes those where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate but wasn't identified as the cause of death.

(For comparison with your "driving to work" comparison: <2,000 people died from traffic accidents).

Now, we don't have the full year of 2021's data for COVID deaths by vaccination status. But we do have January to October. Which shows that even excluding the last two months of 2021, and even excluding all those who built immunity from prior infection, the number of vaccinated people who died from COVID 19 still beat the number who died of flu. And that includes people who were both vaccinated and unvaccinated against flu!

"Super fucking lucky", eh? Why do the vast, vast majority of diseases-- including ones that are more contagious than COVID-- fail to become worldwide pandemics? Are we "super fucking lucky" all the time?

As I've said several times before, these analyses have already been given to you over and over and over again, and you've just failed to read them.

IN A NORMAL FLU SEASON. Covid has out competed the flu over the last 2 years and thus the flu has barely been around.

What virus that is airborne, as contagious as covid, and is contagious prior to symptoms has been stopped before it became a pandemic?

No they haven't. No one has posted a single one.

Right now? At Ottawa, demanding the dissolution of the Canadian government.

LMAO, out of context and complete hyperbole.

Well, about 400,000 US citizens died in WW2 (in total, not just in Europe), so if nobody cares about 900k covid deaths, less than half of nobody should care about Nazis. Or something.

400,000 was a bigger % of the US population at that time than 900,000 is now.

The whole point of a conspiracy is to make sure that no matter what anyone does, they win.

If you deplatform them, they're the victim
If you criticise them, they're the victim
If they deplatform you, they're the victim
If they criticise you, they're the victim
if you defend them, you're the angel
If you do nothing, you're against them
They're definition of Free Speech is that they get Free Speech and no one else does
So, if you talk, you need to be cancelled.
Because, if you listened to Malone, Peterson, Shapiro, Rubin and sometimes Rogan, it's all about how one side is evil and they shouldn't get to have their opinions
It's gets really absurdist when they start calling out the exact behaviour they market themselves on

So flat earthers are always the victim? This is getting ridiculous, simple debate and discussion will discredit ridiculous conspiracies. You're last line there is what the right and left media does as well.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Ugh. IFR does not work like you think it does.

IFR is dependent on a wide range of factors and circumstances, of which immunity is one, and is thus dependent on place and time. You can take a theoretical IFR for a completely naive population, but the minute people start catching it, IFR decreases because people develop immunity. Eventually, covid IFR will probably stabilise through immunity, fluctuating (like influenza) with the appearance of new variants and strains.

However, of course, it's not as simple as that, because diseases have different infectiousness: If covid has an IFR half of influenza in one place and time, it may still cause more deaths if over twice as many people are catching it. Seems to me covid is very transmissible compared to influenza.

In terms of the covid IFR for a naive population, I might simply note that in the USA 270 people per 100,000 have died thus far, or 0.27% (and over 2000 people a day are dying currently). This despite both prior infections and vaccinations throughout most of 2021, both of which reduce the chance of death to less than 10%, even less than 5%, that of not being immune. It is therefore almost guaranteed that the IFR for the US population when totally naive was considerably more than 0.27%. Considering some other countries' statistics as well (400 / 100,000 deaths and still climbing), I would suggest the range of 0.5-1% was likely. So with everyone theoretically immune and so with 95% protection, a reasonable estimate is IFR 0.025-0.05%. This is potentially lower than influenza. Although of course the influenza IFR also represents that lots of people aren't effectively immunised against influenza - or at least some strains of it doing the rounds that year. And as above, we then have to consider how many people might catch it.

Finding any virus' true IFR is hard. I'm merely referring to like an ideal hypothetical situation where you got like a room of 100,000 random people with no immunity and purposefully infect them all and record the IFR from that ideal scenario. Obviously, you have to use data from the real world to work you way back to infer that ideal scenario. My point was even if covid has the same or lower IFR than the flu, it will kill way more because there's no built-in immunity. Comparing covid to the flu in it's first couple years is going to be extremely one-sided.

Or maybe we just find it irresponsible for meat-headed jocks with a giant platform to pretend they're doctors. Just putting that out there.

Rogan's doctor prescribed it to him...

Heck some (many?) Hospitals did order and use hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin in the early pandemic when it was believed it could have helped and we had nothing better to offer. But once the science has shown the test tube results didn't actually translate into real-use results they stopped using it.

Yet hospitals still give people remdesivir that has as much evidence of working as HCQ and Ivermectin.

Except this anti-vax shit has been around and killing people long before Rogan came along. So a popular personality and "man of the people" who uses his platform to lend this harmful type of thinking even more credence is NOT just some innocent goofball. Anymore than Tucker Carlson is when his laywers label him as someone no sane person would take seriously, except that he has millions of people hanging on his every word.

Is Facebook responsible?

Yes.

All Rogan did say was maybe young HEALTHY people don't need to get the vaccine. You do realize the data is something like a 40-year old vaccinated person is more likely to die from covid than a young healthy unvaccinated person. How much harm is Rogan actually causing here? Rogan is hardly anti-vax and people have different risk tolerances obviously and it's not like the vaccine is risk free especially for young males.

Is the air responsible for being a medium for sound waves of someone saying something stupid? You can't have free speech with all this censorship that is being advocated for. And so many things that were deemed as misinformation during the pandemic at one point ceased being misinformation as time went on.

 

[Agema]

Finding any virus' true IFR is hard. I'm merely referring to like an ideal hypothetical situation where you got like a room of 100,000 random people with no immunity and purposefully infect them all and record the IFR from that ideal scenario. Obviously, you have to use data from the real world to work you way back to infer that ideal scenario. My point was even if covid has the same or lower IFR than the flu, it will kill way more because there's no built-in immunity. Comparing covid to the flu in it's first couple years is going to be extremely one-sided.

What do you mean, "true IFR"?

The IFR in a population with no immunity is not "true IFR" or "ideal". It's the IFR for a population with no immunity. When covid first emerged, it was compared to the IFR for influenza. But the IFR for influenza is intrinsically the IFR in a population with substantial immunity, because influenza has been endemic to society for a very long time. You are at least correct that covid is obviously a lot more dangerous to a population that has no immunity, meaning the IFR will decrease over time as it spreads throughout society.

Rogan's doctor prescribed it to him...

Rogan, like most rich people, has a greatly expanded ability to secure a physician willing to do what their patients pays for potentially against medical best practice. One might note Michael Jackson's doctor gave him a cocktail of depressants including benzodiazepines and propofol (propofol - fucking hell!), and we all know how that turned out. "His doctor prescribed it" isn't really the defence you'd make out.

Yet hospitals still give people remdesivir that has as much evidence of working as HCQ and Ivermectin.

Remdesivir is following the same trajectory as HCQ: a lot of hope throwing it at covid early on, petering out over time as the evidence of low efficacy sank in.

And for what it's worth, although the bigger picture is weak efficacy remdesivir does at least have at least some good quality trials backing it, which is more than HCQ or ivermectin ever have. Interestingly, Gilead's own trials on remdesivir for covid did not release the viral load data, which seems highly unusual for an antiviral. I've got a very good idea why they didn't.

 

[Silvanus]

IN A NORMAL FLU SEASON. Covid has out competed the flu over the last 2 years and thus the flu has barely been around.

In 2018, it was 26,516 for influenza and pneumonia. So, still far less than half as much as Covid.

What virus that is airborne, as contagious as covid, and is contagious prior to symptoms has been stopped before it became a pandemic?

No they haven't. No one has posted a single one.

You keep doing this. Someone provides information in response to a question you ask, you don't reply, and then a few days or weeks later you ask the same question and insist nobody has been able to answer it.

I. Already. Answered. This.

 

[Thaluikhain]

In 2018, it was 26,516 for influenza and pneumonia. So, still far less than half as much as Covid.

I pointed this out last time (or, at least one of the times) Phoenixmgs tried the flu/covid comparison thing, but I might point out again the numbers of people dying from covid are doing so during an attempt to stop contagious disease unprecedented in recent years, not when things were business as usual. Now, you can certainly condemn what the UK (and other nations) have done or not done to try and stop the spread, but it's had some affect, covid has been spreading less than it would if things were running normally.

 

[Agema]

We can't prove if masks work over basically 2 years?

Had you been remotely familiar with the literature, you would have read decades of comment that it is extremely hard to do the most reliable trials in a real world environment, not least because of the ethical issues.

The science hasn't even been done on masks,

Funny, because there's one hell of a lot of published science on the topic.

There's been nothing proving masks do anything against any airborne diseases (not counting N95s obviously).

When you say "cloth masks do nothing, and surgical masks did nothing for those under 50" what you're desperately trying to avoid admitting in your usual pathetically pissy fashion are the bits where it showed masks did work - which renders your claim there instantly false.

One aspect of the Bangladesh trial that you keep ignoring is that the adherence was about 40% (which is low). Again, familiarity with the literature would make you aware that adherence is a big deal, but you don't know the literature in sufficient detail, just the cherry picked bits that suit you.

Secondly, this test group was compared to a control group which was masking ~15%, rather than zero. Obviously, this will narrow observable differences.

Thirdly, the Bangladesh study compared data by symptomatic cases, because it was not practical to assess by positive tests or serology. Now stop and think how many people are asymptomatic, and with particular regards to your claim "did nothing for those under 50" that asymptomatic cases are much more common in younger people than older. This again is going to significantly narrow the ability to determine differences between test and control groups, especially for the younger.

So what we're actually talking about is a study that found significant differences due to mask usage despite the fact that main weaknesses in methodology would make it harder to identify a difference, and narrow the apparent benefits: thus it is likely to be a substantial underestimate for the benefit of masks.

 

[Kwak]

I literally posted the link in the post you quoted. Did you not see the vaccinated (no previous covid) line is higher than the unvaccinated (previous covid) line?

No they didn't say anything like that. They recommend vaccination over infection.

Every single published and peer reviewed study has shown natural immunity is stronger.

Liar.

newsGP - COVID immunity following natural infection likely short-lived: Study

New research suggests reinfection can occur in as little as three months, strengthening the argument for vaccination.

www1.racgp.org.au

COVID Natural Immunity: What You Need to Know

Even if you’ve already had COVID-19, getting a coronavirus vaccine is recommended. These are the things you need to know about COVID natural immunity.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

"... (CDC) released a report on Oct. 29, 2021, that says getting vaccinated for the coronavirus when you’ve already had COVID-19 significantly enhances your immune protection and further reduces your risk of reinfection.
A study published in August 2021 ...
Another study published on Nov. 5, 2021, ...
A study from the CDC in September 2021 showed that roughly one-third of those with COVID-19 cases in the study had no apparent natural immunity."

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

You keep doing this. Someone provides information in response to a question you ask, you don't reply, and then a few days or weeks later you ask the same question and insist nobody has been able to answer it.

I. Already. Answered. This.

He's not looking for answers. He's trying to push his belief that there should never have been any sort of COVID restrictions, and that we are all evil for caring more about our lives than his freedom.

There is no point in engaging him in any way on any subject. Everyone should put him on ignore and let him shout into the darkness.

 

[BrawlMan]

There is no point in engaging him in any way on any subject. Everyone should put him on ignore and let him shout into the darkness.

Exactly what I've been doing since Spring of 2021.

 

[Trunkage]

No they didn't say anything like that. They recommend vaccination over infection.


Liar.

newsGP - COVID immunity following natural infection likely short-lived: Study

New research suggests reinfection can occur in as little as three months, strengthening the argument for vaccination.

www1.racgp.org.au

COVID Natural Immunity: What You Need to Know

Even if you’ve already had COVID-19, getting a coronavirus vaccine is recommended. These are the things you need to know about COVID natural immunity.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

"... (CDC) released a report on Oct. 29, 2021, that says getting vaccinated for the coronavirus when you’ve already had COVID-19 significantly enhances your immune protection and further reduces your risk of reinfection.
A study published in August 2021 ...
Another study published on Nov. 5, 2021, ...
A study from the CDC in September 2021 showed that roughly one-third of those with COVID-19 cases in the study had no apparent natural immunity."

Can I just say, I've been really disliking how some people have been reading natural immunity as a permanent immunity. That's not how any of this has been working. Even if you get natural immunity now, you might not have immunity next month

 

[Phoenixmgs]

What do you mean, "true IFR"?

The IFR in a population with no immunity is not "true IFR" or "ideal". It's the IFR for a population with no immunity. When covid first emerged, it was compared to the IFR for influenza. But the IFR for influenza is intrinsically the IFR in a population with substantial immunity, because influenza has been endemic to society for a very long time. You are at least correct that covid is obviously a lot more dangerous to a population that has no immunity, meaning the IFR will decrease over time as it spreads throughout society.

What's the chances of dying from covid when nobody had immunity (expect a handful that had SARS beforehand)? That's what everyone wanted to know to evaluate the actual risk and what measures to put into place. Now, with everyone having immunity from vaccines or previous infection, it's well low enough to not be an issue so I really don't care what the current IFR is because I know it's well within my risk tolerance.

Rogan, like most rich people, has a greatly expanded ability to secure a physician willing to do what their patients pays for potentially against medical best practice. One might note Michael Jackson's doctor gave him a cocktail of depressants including benzodiazepines and propofol (propofol - fucking hell!), and we all know how that turned out. "His doctor prescribed it" isn't really the defence you'd make out.

Or the doctor prescribed it because the doctor wanted to. Ivermectin has been given out to probably like a billion people at this point for covid across the world, it's not some unknown danger. You act like Rogan is encouraging people to play Russian Roulette with their health and/or money.

Remdesivir is following the same trajectory as HCQ: a lot of hope throwing it at covid early on, petering out over time as the evidence of low efficacy sank in.

And for what it's worth, although the bigger picture is weak efficacy remdesivir does at least have at least some good quality trials backing it, which is more than HCQ or ivermectin ever have. Interestingly, Gilead's own trials on remdesivir for covid did not release the viral load data, which seems highly unusual for an antiviral. I've got a very good idea why they didn't.

Even the Ivermectin trials that say it doesn't do anything show shorter hospital stays, which is all remdesivir ever showed (good quality trial or not). And remdesivir is still be used in great quantity. Just a few months back I was replacing a computer (that does pill labels) in the pharmacy of the hospital and they had an entire shelving unit that had nothing but remdesivir. It doesn't make sense to me that a drug with a far less known safety profile, that's tons more expensive, with basically the same efficacy data is being used over something with an extremely well known safety profile that cost pennies. I would take the safer drug that's far cheaper if I'm just basically going to get a placebo effect anyway.

In 2018, it was 26,516 for influenza and pneumonia. So, still far less than half as much as Covid.



You keep doing this. Someone provides information in response to a question you ask, you don't reply, and then a few days or weeks later you ask the same question and insist nobody has been able to answer it.

I. Already. Answered. This.

And you're again using the number of all covid deaths for that. I asked how many covid deaths there are with prior immunity (vaccination or prior infection) vs an average flu season.

They haven't or I haven't seen it. I'm not at all trying to argue in bad faith. If there's all these cost-benefit analyses showing lockdowns saved more life, surely you can link to just one. Also, you failed to list a virus that was as contagious as covid, contagious prior to symptoms, and airborne that we've stopped from being a pandemic. That has literally never happen outside of it possibly happening by sheer luck and not even knowing it happened.

I only prefer to spend so much time on message boards as when I get home from work, I'd rather watch something or play something and eat before going to bed, and then that leaves the weekend or Friday between work and going to the pub. I posted more often last year because at work we had a project that lasted over half a year where we were really only had to realistically work 3-4 hours a day and had tons more downtime.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I pointed this out last time (or, at least one of the times) Phoenixmgs tried the flu/covid comparison thing, but I might point out again the numbers of people dying from covid are doing so during an attempt to stop contagious disease unprecedented in recent years, not when things were business as usual. Now, you can certainly condemn what the UK (and other nations) have done or not done to try and stop the spread, but it's had some affect, covid has been spreading less than it would if things were running normally.

I don't disagree that you can do things to slow the spread, but were those things more harmful overall is the question? There was 20,000 more overdose deaths in the US in 2020 for example. The harm to kids not being in school for a year and a half is massive (it just doesn't have a current ticker you can look at in the present). And some measures caused more spread like say closing beaches and parks. You can't stop people from socializing (it is part of actually being healthy) and people will do it and forcing them inside will increase spread vs decreasing it.

Had you been remotely familiar with the literature, you would have read decades of comment that it is extremely hard to do the most reliable trials in a real world environment, not least because of the ethical issues.

Funny, because there's one hell of a lot of published science on the topic.

You can do cluster randomized trials that weren't done except for I think only TWO. You already had areas masking and not masking, what ethical issues are there? It's not like every place was masking and you're dooming other people to a bad fates by basically a lottery. The science wasn't done and next time this happens, we're literally right where we were in 2019, pretty sad. When looking at long term data comparing places that masked and didn't mask, there's never any significant difference. You have to pick and choose small periods of time to show masks work every single time. Or make up bullshit studies showing masks work like that one amazing CDC study that included REMOTE SCHOOLS in the masking side.

When you say "cloth masks do nothing, and surgical masks did nothing for those under 50" what you're desperately trying to avoid admitting in your usual pathetically pissy fashion are the bits where it showed masks did work - which renders your claim there instantly false.

One aspect of the Bangladesh trial that you keep ignoring is that the adherence was about 40% (which is low). Again, familiarity with the literature would make you aware that adherence is a big deal, but you don't know the literature in sufficient detail, just the cherry picked bits that suit you.

Secondly, this test group was compared to a control group which was masking ~15%, rather than zero. Obviously, this will narrow observable differences.

Thirdly, the Bangladesh study compared data by symptomatic cases, because it was not practical to assess by positive tests or serology. Now stop and think how many people are asymptomatic, and with particular regards to your claim "did nothing for those under 50" that asymptomatic cases are much more common in younger people than older. This again is going to significantly narrow the ability to determine differences between test and control groups, especially for the younger.

So what we're actually talking about is a study that found significant differences due to mask usage despite the fact that main weaknesses in methodology would make it harder to identify a difference, and narrow the apparent benefits: thus it is likely to be a substantial underestimate for the benefit of masks.

I pointed that out not because it proves my claim wrong but basic common sense of asking why did it work in these groups and not in these groups if something (masking) is supposed to help across all groups? You said yourself that real-world mask trials are hard to do (because of all the confounders). Was it the masks actually working in the 50+ group or some unknown confounder(s)? And if it's not a confounder and masks work in that group, then why didn't they work in the other groups? That would lead us to figuring in what situations masks do work and we can wear them then instead of all the time when they don't work in most situations. I'm very very very very doubtful in masks doing much of anything in the situations when the virus is very likely to spread like being in the same place indoors (work/home/friends place/etc) with someone that is infectious for a prolonged period.

I know the Bangladesh study is not the best methodology, but it's the best we got. It still found cloth masks did nothing, which is what most people wear anyway. A better way would to have a known un-immune population (confirmed via anti-body test) and then do an anti-body test at the end to see which group (randomized) had more infections. And guess when we had like a world full of un-immune people? Back when we could've of done quite a lot of fucking trials to show if masking has any affect or not. Problem is we didn't do the science yet we've been told the science is final that masks work, it's a sad state of affairs. If you were just looking at this data for masks and didn't know what it was (say you assumed it was a drug), you'd say the data doesn't show enough efficacy or there's not enough good data to prove efficacy.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

No they didn't say anything like that. They recommend vaccination over infection.


Liar.

newsGP - COVID immunity following natural infection likely short-lived: Study

New research suggests reinfection can occur in as little as three months, strengthening the argument for vaccination.

www1.racgp.org.au

COVID Natural Immunity: What You Need to Know

Even if you’ve already had COVID-19, getting a coronavirus vaccine is recommended. These are the things you need to know about COVID natural immunity.

www.hopkinsmedicine.org

"... (CDC) released a report on Oct. 29, 2021, that says getting vaccinated for the coronavirus when you’ve already had COVID-19 significantly enhances your immune protection and further reduces your risk of reinfection.
A study published in August 2021 ...
Another study published on Nov. 5, 2021, ...
A study from the CDC in September 2021 showed that roughly one-third of those with COVID-19 cases in the study had no apparent natural immunity."

Nobody is saying you should get covid on purpose to get stronger immunity. The argument is that if you did have covid before vaccines were available, then why do you need to get the vaccine? Because that's what the data says.

Of course, in the short time after you get vaccinated (since it boost antibody levels), you're going to be less likely to get infected. But that boost only lasts a couple months. Unless you can predict the future and know when you're going to get covid, what's the point of getting vaccinated or boosted if you have prior immunity?

Lastly, not all CDC published studies are created equal. One of their studies said covid causes diabetes... Literally every single actually published and peer reviewed paper on natural immunity says it's better than vaccination immunity. The CDC loves to cite studies that they won't actually publish so they don't get peer reviewed to show the "science" supports the narrative. Mind you that basically all of the EU has recognized natural immunity and counts it for their covid passports. The US is one of the few countries in the whole world not recognizing natural immunity in our policies.

Can I just say, I've been really disliking how some people have been reading natural immunity as a permanent immunity. That's not how any of this has been working. Even if you get natural immunity now, you might not have immunity next month

The word "immunity" doesn't mean you can't get covid, it's means you body knows how to fight covid so that you are very very very very unlikely to get severe disease. Natural or vaccine immunity probably won't last forever but it will last years, the T and B cells are not waning, antibodies waning is not a big deal. You do have immunity for years unless you have an immune system issue. Just because you get infected doesn't mean you don't have immunity.

 

[Silvanus]

And you're again using the number of all covid deaths for that. I asked how many covid deaths there are with prior immunity (vaccination or prior infection) vs an average flu season.

Why would you compare covid deaths with prior immunity to influenza deaths without prior immunity? Make a like-for-like comparison, or don't make a comparison at all.

 

[Agema]

What's the chances of dying from covid when nobody had immunity (expect a handful that had SARS beforehand)?

I'm saying if you're going to use technical terms, use them properly. Otherwise you're just telling everyone who knows their stuff you don't understand the subject.

Or the doctor prescribed it because the doctor wanted to. Ivermectin has been given out to probably like a billion people at this point for covid across the world, it's not some unknown danger. You act like Rogan is encouraging people to play Russian Roulette with their health and/or money.

He's asking people to waste their money on something that has a reasonable chance of decreasing their quality of life in return for most likely nothing. At least if they bought lottery tickets they might win something, and with no risk of headaches, diarrhoea and skin rashes.

Even the Ivermectin trials that say it doesn't do anything show shorter hospital stays,

1) If it causes shorter hospital stays, then it doesn't do nothing.
2) The evidence base is not remotely clear that ivermectin reduces hospitalisation time.

Just a few months back I was replacing a computer (that does pill labels) in the pharmacy of the hospital and they had an entire shelving unit that had nothing but remdesivir.

And what that doesn't tell you is how much they're using it.

You can do cluster randomized trials that weren't done except for I think only TWO. You already had areas masking and not masking, what ethical issues are there?

It's very nice that you've read some words that you can type to pretend you know what you're talking about, but see above re. terminology. Actually, you don't know what you're talking about: you have an armchair expert's illusion of knowledge and understanding.

I pointed that out not because it proves my claim wrong...

No, what happened is that you emotionally invested too much in the claim that masks did nothing. When data increasingly rolled in saying that they were in fact useful, this merely reinforced your commitment to your existing belief that they were not. This is a well-recognised psychological phenomenon. One might note in relation to this your overconfidence that you understand what's going on (despite repeatedly having to be corrected), and repeated claims that you have been right about everything.

 

[Kwak]

One of their studies said covid causes diabetes..

No they didn't.

Risk for Newly Diagnosed Diabetes 30 Days After SARS-CoV-2 ...

This report describes how children and adolescents were more likely to receive a new diabetes diagnosis after infection with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19.

www.cdc.gov

SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with worsening of diabetes symptoms, and persons with diabetes are at increased risk for severe COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 infection might also induce newly diagnosed diabetes.

What is added by this report?

Persons aged <18 years with COVID-19 were more likely to receive a new diabetes diagnosis >30 days after infection than were those without COVID-19 and those with prepandemic acute respiratory infections. Non–SARS-CoV-2 respiratory infection was not associated with an increased risk for diabetes.

What are the implications for public health practice?

The increased diabetes risk among persons aged <18 years following COVID-19 highlights the importance of COVID-19 prevention strategies in this age group, including vaccination for all eligible persons and chronic disease prevention and treatment.

And why do you consider a link far-fetched?

Exploring research: Can coronavirus cause diabetes, or make it worse?

We look at the evidence behind reports coronavirus can cause diabetes or make it worse, and explain why it's too early to know for sure yet.

www.diabetes.org.uk

At the start of the coronavirus pandemic, doctors started to raise concerns around new cases of diabetes in people who had caught the virus.

Since early reports first came to light, we've seen results from larger studies looking at big groups of people who’ve recovered from coronavirus. One study tracked over 47,000 people in England who had been admitted to hospital because of coronavirus before August 2020. The researchers followed their health for up to seven months after they were discharged and found 5% of people went on to develop diabetes.

They also showed that people who’d been in hospital with coronavirus were 1.5 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes after they’d been discharged than people of the same age and background who hadn’t been in hospital with coronavirus.

In 2022, researchers in the United States published findings from their analysis of health insurance data from around 1.6 million children, under the age of 18 years.

They looked at who’d been diagnosed with diabetes between March 2020 – March 2021 and if there were any differences in rates of diagnoses between children who’d had coronavirus, children who hadn’t, and children who had other types of respiratory infections. The study didn't distinguish between type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

The researchers studied two different sets of data. In both datasets, children who’d had coronavirus were more likely to later be diagnosed with diabetes than those who hadn’t had coronavirus or had a different type of respiratory infection.

In the first dataset, the researchers found after having coronavirus, children were around 2.5 times (166%) more likely to develop diabetes than children who hadn’t been infected. In the other dataset the increased risk was smaller, at 31%. These differences in risk are likely down to differences in the way data was classified and collected. Respiratory infections that weren’t coronavirus were not found to be linked with an increased risk of diabetes.

The evidence to suggest a link between coronavirus and new cases of diabetes is growing but there’s still a lot we don’t know. We can’t yet be sure if coronavirus is directly causing diabetes, or whether there are other factors that could explain the link.