I would like to see all the data W.H.O looked at before making the evaluation. Also why is VAERS not mentioned?
Or someone having a bad day. Human beings are not robots. In fact they are quite opposite, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demon_core
> all you need is for some people to be near some sick bats.
Seems that there are multiple problems with that..
1. High level of optimisation for Human transmission, without many mutations indicating the possibility that it was pre-optimised somewhere before making the jump.
2. Presense of double `CGG` which is left as a common market to denote lab insertions.
>The insertion sequence of choice is the double CGG. That’s because it is readily available and convenient, and scientists have a great deal of experience inserting it. An additional advantage of the double CGG sequence compared with the other 35 possible choices: It creates a useful beacon that permits the scientists to track the insertion in the laboratory.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-suggests-a-wuhan-la...
So on the other hand, for lab leak, only these needs to be satisfied.
1. They were doing GoF research on viruses trying optimise for human transmission.
2. Someone had a bad day and didn't follow the strict procedures, and ended up getting infected with a super charged virus.
What makes the above far fetched is only if you take the chinese researcher's word for granted, and accpet that there was no such research being conducted there, and no virus that was close enough was stored in the lab to start the research with. But without that, I think the lab leak is much more probably, and I think most experts will agree as well (They don't because they have a hard time doubting fellow reserchers without evidence).
https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/01/27/does-lockdown-work-...
Under the heading "The damage inflicted by medical ideas"
If that is the case, its pretty obvious why they are not supporting it..
But here too the reporting is open to anyone, and is voluntary. So chances of large under reporting is present here as well. Which is a bit scary..
This is very true. But I don't think it is a problem with technology.
It is just that you cannot really have a valuable insight by putting a 10000 idiots in a room and have them argue it out. In other words, you cannot replace one intelligent man with a 10000 idiots, hence the failure of HN and similar forums.
These things are only good for sharing interesting things, so the best way to use is to just use posted links, and never to engage in discussion.
If the brand new vaccines using a brand new technology are low risk, is really a matter of opinion. Basically it comes down to how much you trust the authorities and the how much you consider any given research or studies to be unbiased. (Particularly when the full data for the said studies remain unpublished)
You can plainly see that both of these are variable between different people, even within similar schools of thoughts.
So because someone does not share your opinion does not make them a liar.
If that is the case any one saying the new vaccines are "safe and effective", should also be an obvious lie, because the long term safety studies are not done, which objectively makes it a lie.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/docs/VAERS_Table_of_Reportable_Events_...
And the person you are responding basically said that the new vaccines are so safe that it didn't have to be on that list.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27513984
I don't mean this as a personal attack on that user, but It is really concerning how blind and apologetic some people are to the various things that can go wrong with a Vaccine.
None of them are as effective as Ivermectin (allegedly). It is only logical that efficacy is also important.
It is not a source, and never was a legitimate source of anything, but a media of communication. I am not sure why people mix the two up. If doctors in one part of their world can share their observations with doctors all over the world, it has tremendous value.
Now it seems that doctors can only share their observations with W.H.O and any inference should come from the top, which they could delay citing sorry "no research" for an arbitrarly long time..
I think it is safe to suppose they or the associated medical authorities have observed a big enough benefit before making that claim.
But no, no concrete numbers, as I think there was not much of tracking the number of patients who were given the drug. May be it is because such numbers are not much of a value in terms of research data due to lack of controls.
Please see this
Killing science in the name of religion and beliefs is one thing, killing science in the name of science itself is quite another.
Normally authorities are afraid to go against W.H.O recommendations, because if it didn't work out, it would be hard to justify it on the basis of local observations alone, at least on paper.
But the important thing is that some states still did it, which might indicate there was very observable benefit.
Yes, example from two states.
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-prade...
https://www.news18.com/news/india/mortality-rate-much-lower-...
The testimony video in this page cites examples in many other countries https://covid19criticalcare.com/
FLCCC Alliance Response to All National and International Health Agency Recommendations Against Ivermectin in COVID-19:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea... international-health-agency-recommendations-against-ivermectin-in-covid-19/
Response to W.H.O s rejection of the studies:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea...
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/F...
But who is to blame for the deaths of thousands of people, who could have been saved by Ivermectin, which in all probability is happening right now, and has been going on for many months, if not for the censorship of W.H.O, Youtube and media?
They say that you cannot measure, you cannot improve. So it follows that to actually improve public health, there should be some way to measure it.But do we try to measure public health in modern times? If not why?
Can we please get rid of this idea of some entity named "science" reaching a "consensus", already?
Please just say we don't know. Because it promotes the idea that there is some divine "science" out there that is disconnected from human beings
I would say the current alignment of incentive structure, is the biggest threat to public health.
Please share the link to the page and section heading under which this graph is present.
Also this page seem to be updated https://austingwalters.com/covid19-vaccine-risks/ with the information about observation of increase in R00-R99 deaths for current time.
>but does not seem likely to withstand rigorous analysis.
But where is this rigorous analysis?
https://drowningindatadotblog.wordpress.com/2021/05/27/linki...
And there is also one from CDC data..
I guess this is what people were saying about Absolute vs Relative risk reduction. If that is so, your explanation makes it much more clear.